Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

He isn't asking Dariusz to leave the board, but the position of chair of a particular committee on it. While I have no idea if this is called for either, it seems an important distinction. -I On 03/05/16 04:23, Anthony Cole wrote: Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board update

Patricio Lorente wrote: > When Denny informed the Board that he was stepping down, we began to >consider how we would move forward. We recognize the importance of >filling the two vacancies on the Board, and would like to proceed in a >way that respects the will of the community and responds to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

I like that, Pine. I would add, procedure to disclose and manage conflicts of interest that board members might have, in our context. That would bring in the matters around Denny's departure. Those four things. On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Pine W wrote: > I will make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

Given the quickly approaching deadline, and the general support for affiliates voluntarily sharing if they voted (not who they voted for) - I went ahead (after chatting with folks that attended WikiCon) and setup a Meta-Wiki page to allow folks to voluntarily report back over the next couple of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

I will make a suggestion that I have made previously: that there should be an external firm, probably a law firm experienced with nonprofit governance, brought in to examine and publicize the facts regarding the Foundation's Board governance and to make recommendations for changes to policies and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

On 05/05/16 11:10, Tim Starling wrote: > In fact, employees disagreed with Lila's decision to pursue large > restricted grants for a stupid pet project, in secret, supported by > almost nobody, without Board knowledge let alone approval. This has > nothing to do with education versus technology

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Invitation to upcoming office hours with interim ED

Just noting that 1700-1800 PDT on Wednesday May 11 is -0100 UTC on Thursday May 12. Based on the link given, this seems to be when the meeting will be held. Please verify. Risker/Anne On 4 May 2016 at 21:28, Pine W wrote: > Forwarding. > > Pine > -- Forwarded

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

It seems to me, that the question of whether or not we should consider extending the scope of the whistleblower policy, can be reduced to a question of whether or not we believe that United States law at any given moment is an ideal representation of unacceptable conduct. Either way, I would be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

On 04/05/16 12:02, MZMcBride wrote: > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy > > You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current > whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to > laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy

[Wikimedia-l] Invitation to upcoming office hours with interim ED

Hi everyone, **Summary: I am delighted to invite you to join me for two upcoming office hours, where I’ll answer community questions and share updates on the Foundation’s work.** It’s been a busy few weeks around the Wikimedia Foundation offices. We shared our 2016-2017 annual plan, finished our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote: > 2) The whistleblower policy was indeed insufficient because even very > serious ethical complaints raised did not rise to the level of strict > illegality. > without referring to issues in the past, I think that a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

In my personal opinion and recollection, two of the points raised above are on-target: 1) Several staff, including myself, explicitly sought out Board members whom they did not view as a directly loyal conduit to Lila, precisely because they feared retribution from them/her. 2) The whistleblower

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

Hoi, There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

@Andreas - I am serving as an election facilitator in this process. That means I volunteer to organize the election, but not that I have any rank or power to set rules or to interpret the process. I have read what I can, and talked to people, and I can probably answer easy questions about the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

Hoi, There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

> > >> Such an issue should have been addressed and resolved during the > eliligbilty process, not after the fact . > There are actually no eligibility criteria for this election, except that candidates have received at least one endorsement from a Wikimedia chapter or Thematic Organisation.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

On 04-05-16 13:48, Chris Keating wrote: A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it the same as for the three community board seats, where the community members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the sitting board is free to accept or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

> > A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it > the same as for the three community board seats, where the community > members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the > sitting board is free to accept or reject? > As with the community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Hoi, I would assume that people who spoke in confidence were ASKED if they wanted to be included. It would be really bad to approach it in any other way. As to the knowledge engine. Can we please put it to rest. It has always been a big misunderstanding. It is not and has never been what the WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry wrote: > Hello, > > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters' > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees. > Lane, A procedural question: Is the chapters'

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

> I'd like to ask about *who* this "professional fact finding" process talked > to? I'm not asking to "name specific names" but more about which groups of > people. > I also wonder about this - I am sort of assuming that the people who were coming forward to raise grievances were included in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

There are several important issues that people have raised here already - notably the question of confidentiality of information; the question of the membership of this "task force"; and the question of whether the whistleblower process was effective/sufficient. However, I'd like to refer to this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Pardon my naivety, but is it possible that "whistleblowers" didn't want the whole Board to know their identity, because other Board members were very close to Lila? It's pretty clear to me that there was serious fear of retribution (not implying that retribution was likely, just saying that the