Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

2016-03-02 Thread Kevin Gorman 
Chris: this is certainly not meant to constitute legal advice and it's
getting tangential any way because since we have community 'selections'
James can CERTAINLY run since it's a 'selection,' but I ran the statutory
language passed a Florida lawyer, alhough one who doesn't practice this
sort of law.  Section (1)(a)(1) starts off with "Except as provided in
paragraph (i)..." and then goes on to talk about further details regarding
director removal.  At first glance, both she and I parsed the language to
mean that the provisions of (1)(a)(1) did not apply to directors removed
under paragraph (i) - that is, a director removed without cause would not
be subject to the provsion barring him from standing for election in the
next cycle.  But this really is irrelevant, since there is no similar
provision banning the rerunning of "community selected" trustees.

Jimmy, I've been reassured by James, who I have significant trust for, that
the email James is requesting the relief of doesn't deal with confidential
WMF business.  Combined with Pete Forsyth's recent message about you using
offlist messages to attack James more viciously than you have on list, it's
starting to feel a lot like you are using the cover of 'confidential board
information' to hide an email that simply makes you look bad.  Please
release the email; if you don't within a couple of days, I'll start trying
to convince Doc James that it wouldn't be a violation of his integrity to
release your email even without your permission.  Your behavior in these
emails could itself be significant for the movement to be aware of.  You've
sent me multiple long emails; I know you have time to forward the email in
question to the list.

I'm pretty severely disappointed that the board of the largest single free
knowledge organization in the world is engaging in more vicious personal
attacks than the boards I've seen that consisted of college students, and,
equally, have been operating with less transparency.


Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Chris Sherlock 
wrote:

>
> > On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:55 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> >
> > Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
> > director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
> > cycle.  As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause.  Every
> > reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
> > WMF employees.  E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
> > having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
> > employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
> > conversations, and simply listened to their feedback.  In an ideal
> > situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
> > employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board
> alerting
> > the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
> > conversations, which they would have hear.
>
> Agreed with your larger point about removal for/without cause. All I can
> say is that the bit I quoted doesn’t state for or without cause, it doesn’t
> seem to distinguish between the two modes of removal.
>
> > More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks,
> > we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' -
> the
> > board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
> > which the board may then choose to accept or reject.  Given the fact that
> > we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
> > James can stand in the next 'community board selection.’
>
> Fair point. I’m definitely not a lawyer. Nobody would be happier to see
> James stand for reelection than myself. :-)
>
> > Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested
> you
> > to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
> > fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me.  W/r/t an
> email
> > related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
> > transparency seems necessary.  You've said the email contains nothing of
> > mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth
> there
> > - I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
> > either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
> > But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
> > the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't
> get
> > that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
> > release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
> > confidential w/r/t the BoT?  I'm sure James will comment if your
> redactions
> > are excessive.  Without any confidential information, all the email is
> is a
> > document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
> > community 'selected' trustee, something th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

2016-03-01 Thread Chris Sherlock 

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:55 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> 
> Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
> director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
> cycle.  As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause.  Every
> reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
> WMF employees.  E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
> having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
> employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
> conversations, and simply listened to their feedback.  In an ideal
> situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
> employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board alerting
> the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
> conversations, which they would have hear.

Agreed with your larger point about removal for/without cause. All I can say is 
that the bit I quoted doesn’t state for or without cause, it doesn’t seem to 
distinguish between the two modes of removal. 

> More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks,
> we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' - the
> board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
> which the board may then choose to accept or reject.  Given the fact that
> we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
> James can stand in the next 'community board selection.’

Fair point. I’m definitely not a lawyer. Nobody would be happier to see James 
stand for reelection than myself. :-)

> Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested you
> to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
> fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me.  W/r/t an email
> related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
> transparency seems necessary.  You've said the email contains nothing of
> mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth there
> - I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
> either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
> But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
> the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't get
> that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
> release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
> confidential w/r/t the BoT?  I'm sure James will comment if your redactions
> are excessive.  Without any confidential information, all the email is is a
> document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
> community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
> transparent as possible about.

Jimmy, I agree with Kevin. Can you please release these emails? I realise you 
have a lot on your plate, but I think it would be good of you to release these 
emails soon. I trust you when you tell me that you are a champion of 
transparency and openness, and I also know you have had a lot on your plate 
lately so I’m trying not to put too much pressure on you at the moment. 

I think, however, that the sooner you release the emails, the sooner it helps 
the rest of us come to an understanding why the Board made their decisions and 
we can at the very least feel more confident in the integrity of the Board of 
Trustees. This issue has dragged on for over two months now, and none of us are 
still much the wiser, though many of us are beginning to put the pieces 
together in our own heads. Which is dangerous, as we may well be jumping to the 
wrong conclusions because we don’t have enough information. Unfortunately, the 
lack of information is something that only the Board can resolve for us.

There are a number of other questions that still need answering around the 
grant application, so I’d love to see you clarify them soon also.

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] A quick note about the future

2016-03-01 Thread Kevin Gorman 
Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
cycle.  As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause.  Every
reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
WMF employees.  E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
conversations, and simply listened to their feedback.  In an ideal
situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board alerting
the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
conversations, which they would have hear.

More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks,
we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' - the
board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
which the board may then choose to accept or reject.  Given the fact that
we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
James can stand in the next 'community board selection.'

Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested you
to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me.  W/r/t an email
related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
transparency seems necessary.  You've said the email contains nothing of
mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth there
- I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't get
that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
confidential w/r/t the BoT?  I'm sure James will comment if your redactions
are excessive.  Without any confidential information, all the email is is a
document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
transparent as possible about.


Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Dear Jimmy,
>
> Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate signals that
> lead to a better understanding and coming to terms with each other. I
> am happy to read that you wouldn't, as a person, object to a return of
> James to the board.
>
> However, the FAQ says in the introduction: "The Board has compiled
> this list of answers to many of the most common questions." So this
> FAQ is a statement of the board, also in your name.
>
> Which relates to your very decision to vote for the removal of another
> board member. Why did you support the removal? For a gut feeling
> anticipation that James might misbehave in future? Or for specific
> actions of James in the past, actions that could be defined legally,
> or at least within the frame of the WMF regulations? You know: nulla
> poena sine lege.
>
> I don't want to judge about matters I don't know sufficiently about. I
> don't want to speculate and spread rumors. I don't want to rely on
> leaked documents. I don't want to show disrespect to people who invest
> a lot of time in order to keep the board and the Foundation running.
>
> I just want to know, as a voter, why a board member coming from the
> elections has been removed, and what are the consequences. Because I
> want to know what is the value of my vote.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> PS: Thanks for the quote, Chris; I wonder what "next annual meeting"
> means in our context.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-02-29 16:51 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic :
> > I agree as well.
> > On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales"  wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> >> > There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other
> members
> >> > of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that
> led
> >> you
> >> > to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
> >> > non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
> >> vague
> >> > assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up
> with
> >> > lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case
> >> then
> >> > maybe stop talking about it altogether.
> >>
> >> I agree with you completely.
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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/listin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

2016-03-01 Thread Ziko van Dijk 
Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate signals that
lead to a better understanding and coming to terms with each other. I
am happy to read that you wouldn't, as a person, object to a return of
James to the board.

However, the FAQ says in the introduction: "The Board has compiled
this list of answers to many of the most common questions." So this
FAQ is a statement of the board, also in your name.

Which relates to your very decision to vote for the removal of another
board member. Why did you support the removal? For a gut feeling
anticipation that James might misbehave in future? Or for specific
actions of James in the past, actions that could be defined legally,
or at least within the frame of the WMF regulations? You know: nulla
poena sine lege.

I don't want to judge about matters I don't know sufficiently about. I
don't want to speculate and spread rumors. I don't want to rely on
leaked documents. I don't want to show disrespect to people who invest
a lot of time in order to keep the board and the Foundation running.

I just want to know, as a voter, why a board member coming from the
elections has been removed, and what are the consequences. Because I
want to know what is the value of my vote.

Kind regards
Ziko


PS: Thanks for the quote, Chris; I wonder what "next annual meeting"
means in our context.








2016-02-29 16:51 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic :
> I agree as well.
> On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales"  wrote:
>
>> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
>> > There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
>> > of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led
>> you
>> > to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
>> > non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
>> vague
>> > assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
>> > lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case
>> then
>> > maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>>
>> I agree with you completely.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread James Heilman 
@ Newyorkbrad

I agree that nothing needs to be kept secret for my sake. I am have always
been fully supportive of discussing the issue of board conduct and my
removal.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Denny Vrandecic 
I agree as well.
On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales"  wrote:

> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
> > of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led
> you
> > to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
> > non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
> vague
> > assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
> > lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case
> then
> > maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>
> I agree with you completely.
>
>
> ___
> 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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Chris Sherlock 
This is actually a fairly easy one to clear up. 

Basically, it’s the law. 

Under Fl. St. § 617.0808, which deals with the removal of directors, it clearly 
states that "Any director who is removed from the board is not eligible to 
stand for reelection until the next annual meeting at which directors are 
elected.” [1]

I am not a lawyer. Just a guy who has read far too much of the Florida Statutes 
around non-profit entities. 

Chris

1. 
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0600-0699/0617/Sections/0617.0808.html

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 1:47 AM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> 
> This touches on matters beyond my scope of expertise.  I didn't write
> that FAQ, and I am not an expert on legal terminology like
> "mismanagement" or "misconduct".  I support that the board and legal
> team review the matter seriously and generously.
> 
> All I'm saying is that if he is eligible, and if he is elected, then I
> support him rejoining the board.  I'm putting forward that although I've
> been disappointed by his behavior (and thanks to Pete's wise words, I'm
> trying to open a private conversation to try to work through some of
> that) I am not in any way a key obstacle to his rejoining.


___
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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Jimmy Wales 

This touches on matters beyond my scope of expertise.  I didn't write
that FAQ, and I am not an expert on legal terminology like
"mismanagement" or "misconduct".  I support that the board and legal
team review the matter seriously and generously.

All I'm saying is that if he is eligible, and if he is elected, then I
support him rejoining the board.  I'm putting forward that although I've
been disappointed by his behavior (and thanks to Pete's wise words, I'm
trying to open a private conversation to try to work through some of
that) I am not in any way a key obstacle to his rejoining.

On 2/29/16 6:35 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello Jimmy,
> 
> Thank you for the note. I was wondering about the eligibility of
> James, because the page
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#Can_James_be_a_candidate_for_a_community-selected_seat_again.3F
> says:
> "Due to the removal from the Board, James is not eligible to be a
> candidate for the Board until the 2017 community selection process.
> Under the Bylaws, the Board oversees the rules and procedures for the
> community-selection process. If the Board determines that a candidate
> does not meet eligibility criteria, it may decline to appoint the
> candidate to the Board."
> 
> Before 2017, James could be appointed to the board by the sitting
> board members. Is he eligible for such an appointment?
> 
> According to the 2015 board selection page, a candidate for the
> community seats - and I assume that the rules for other seats are
> comparable - has to meet some criteria,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2015
> "Prerequisites to candidacy".
> 
> If James was eligible in spring 2015, I guess that he is also eligible
> at the moment. But why does the FAQ say that James is not eligible
> "now" because of the removal?
> 
> The "prerequisites" say:
> "You must not have been removed from a position at a non-profit
> organization or other company because of mismanagement or misconduct"
> 
> So would this be a reason for not appointing James to the board, or
> call him not eligible for the 2017 elections? Was James removed from
> the WMF Board for "mismanagement or misconduct"?
> 
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-02-29 15:03 GMT+01:00 Amir E. Aharoni :
>> Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct.
>>
>> Everybody is tired of this mystery.
>>
>> I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of
>> unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates
>> the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in
>> ourselves.
>>
>> Simply telling everybody's stories fully and openly is the only right thing
>> now.
>> בתאריך 29 בפבר׳ 2016 15:53,‏ "Nathan"  כתב:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
 think of the possibility of James running for the board again.

 First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
 next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
 don't know.

 Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
 support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
 about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
 mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
 him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
 told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
 that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
 least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.

 Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
 instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
 I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
 brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
 inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling
 down.

 Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
 the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
 what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
 on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
 acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
 to the things that actually upset people.

 There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
 have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.

>>>
>>> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
>>> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led you
>>> to eject Heilman from t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Ziko van Dijk 
Hello Jimmy,

Thank you for the note. I was wondering about the eligibility of
James, because the page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#Can_James_be_a_candidate_for_a_community-selected_seat_again.3F
says:
"Due to the removal from the Board, James is not eligible to be a
candidate for the Board until the 2017 community selection process.
Under the Bylaws, the Board oversees the rules and procedures for the
community-selection process. If the Board determines that a candidate
does not meet eligibility criteria, it may decline to appoint the
candidate to the Board."

Before 2017, James could be appointed to the board by the sitting
board members. Is he eligible for such an appointment?

According to the 2015 board selection page, a candidate for the
community seats - and I assume that the rules for other seats are
comparable - has to meet some criteria,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2015
"Prerequisites to candidacy".

If James was eligible in spring 2015, I guess that he is also eligible
at the moment. But why does the FAQ say that James is not eligible
"now" because of the removal?

The "prerequisites" say:
"You must not have been removed from a position at a non-profit
organization or other company because of mismanagement or misconduct"

So would this be a reason for not appointing James to the board, or
call him not eligible for the 2017 elections? Was James removed from
the WMF Board for "mismanagement or misconduct"?

Kind regards
Ziko









2016-02-29 15:03 GMT+01:00 Amir E. Aharoni :
> Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct.
>
> Everybody is tired of this mystery.
>
> I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of
> unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates
> the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in
> ourselves.
>
> Simply telling everybody's stories fully and openly is the only right thing
> now.
> בתאריך 29 בפבר׳ 2016 15:53,‏ "Nathan"  כתב:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
>> > think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
>> >
>> > First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
>> > next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
>> > don't know.
>> >
>> > Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
>> > support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
>> > about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
>> > mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
>> > him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
>> > told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
>> > that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
>> > least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.
>> >
>> > Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
>> > instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
>> > I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
>> > brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
>> > inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling
>> > down.
>> >
>> > Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
>> > the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
>> > what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
>> > on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
>> > acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
>> > to the things that actually upset people.
>> >
>> > There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
>> > have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.
>> >
>>
>> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
>> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led you
>> to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
>> non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making vague
>> assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
>> lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then
>> maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Newyorkbrad 
Although there may be aspects of the Doc James situation that
legitimately must, or at least should, stay private, I am sure more
can be revealed than has been to date.

Let me see if I can help with one aspect of the issue.  One stated
reason that information has not been forthcoming, has been that
revealing it could be a violation of Doc James's own privacy or his
expectations of confidentiality.

I expect that if asked point-blank, Dr. Heilman would agree to waive
any confidentiality interest that he personally might have in keeping
any aspect of the matter confidential or undisclosed.  So I hereby ask
him if he is able and willing to do that..

(My apologies if this has been done before and I missed it.)

Doc James' agreeing that nothing needs to be kept confidential for HIS
sake will not cut the entire Gordian knot that has kept this situation
unclear for months -- but perhaps it will be helpful at least to some
extent.

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On 2/29/16, Amir E. Aharoni  wrote:
> Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct.
>
> Everybody is tired of this mystery.
>
> I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of
> unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates
> the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in
> ourselves.
>
> Simply telling everybody's stories fully and openly is the only right thing
> now.
> בתאריך 29 בפבר׳ 2016 15:53,‏ "Nathan"  כתב:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
>> > think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
>> >
>> > First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
>> > next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
>> > don't know.
>> >
>> > Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
>> > support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
>> > about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
>> > mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
>> > him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
>> > told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
>> > that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
>> > least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.
>> >
>> > Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
>> > instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
>> > I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
>> > brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
>> > inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling
>> > down.
>> >
>> > Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
>> > the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
>> > what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
>> > on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
>> > acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
>> > to the things that actually upset people.
>> >
>> > There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
>> > have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.
>> >
>>
>> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
>> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led
>> you
>> to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
>> non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
>> vague
>> assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
>> lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then
>> maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>> ___
>> 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 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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Amir E. Aharoni 
Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct.

Everybody is tired of this mystery.

I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of
unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates
the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in
ourselves.

Simply telling everybody's stories fully and openly is the only right thing
now.
בתאריך 29 בפבר׳ 2016 15:53,‏ "Nathan"  כתב:

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
> > think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
> >
> > First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
> > next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
> > don't know.
> >
> > Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
> > support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
> > about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
> > mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
> > him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
> > told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
> > that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
> > least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.
> >
> > Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
> > instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
> > I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
> > brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
> > inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling
> > down.
> >
> > Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
> > the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
> > what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
> > on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
> > acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
> > to the things that actually upset people.
> >
> > There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
> > have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.
> >
>
> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led you
> to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
> non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making vague
> assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
> lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then
> maybe stop talking about it altogether.
> ___
> 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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Jimmy Wales 
On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led you
> to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
> non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making vague
> assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
> lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then
> maybe stop talking about it altogether.

I agree with you completely.


___
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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Nathan 
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

>
> One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
> think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
>
> First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
> next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
> don't know.
>
> Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
> support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
> about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
> mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
> him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
> told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
> that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
> least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.
>
> Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
> instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
> I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
> brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
> inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling
> down.
>
> Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
> the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
> what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
> on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
> acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
> to the things that actually upset people.
>
> There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
> have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.
>

There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led you
to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making vague
assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then
maybe stop talking about it altogether.
___
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] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Jimmy Wales 

One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
think of the possibility of James running for the board again.

First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
don't know.

Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.

Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling down.

Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
to the things that actually upset people.

There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.

___
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,