Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

+1 to MZMcBride comment I strongly support us actually elected the community trustees. I have reached out to a couple of lawyers to try to figure out how involved this would be. James On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Patricio Lorente wrote: > >Today the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Patricio Lorente wrote: >Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of >the Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective >immediately. > >This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a >responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

> On 16 Jan 2016, at 18:39, Alex Monk wrote: > > On 16 January 2016 at 10:08, Yury Bulka > wrote: > >> MZMcBride writes: >>> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google >> Apps >>> platform,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

James Alexander wrote: >I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be >concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate >for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" >line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

MZMcBride writes: > A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps > platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is > now hosted by Google. Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hoi, To be perfectly honest, the biggest gift of Google is to recognise Wikipedia as significant. I like to think that it is because of the algorithms they use and even when it is not it is what makes Wikipedia significant. When they value us not only through their algorithms and give us money

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 16 January 2016 at 10:08, Yury Bulka wrote: > MZMcBride writes: > > A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google > Apps > > platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain > is > > now

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Yury Bulka wrote: >MZMcBride writes: >> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google >>Apps platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org >>domain is now hosted by Google. >Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Yury Bulka wrote: >> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps >> platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is >> now hosted by Google. > Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other former process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from late September or early October when candidates and nominations were

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Milos, is your email a wind-up? I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance. If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ wrote: > On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > .. > This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* > responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a > transparent and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Sorry, this continues to dig a bizarre hole. It would be rude or even unethical to nominate someone for a demanding trustee position in a NFP or charity without first personally approaching them in a friendly way and asking them if they might be interested and would like to be nominated. I do not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations > from our donors, if this helps. I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom existence in relation to this issue, except

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ wrote: > >> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: >> .. >> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 10/01/2016 04:04, Comet styles wrote: Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he? A board made up to govern a community driven project

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I will admit that if I knew I would likely not be wiling to say without talking to others first. However I will never lie and I can honestly say that I do not. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Fæ wrote: > Hi James Alexander, > > Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote: Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to James, presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the appointment of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished. Would you please remain civil. We do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 01/10/2016 11:16 AM, James Alexander wrote: > Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person] > > I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be > concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for > question however this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote: >> Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to >> James, >> presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the >> appointment >> of another

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person] I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of thought

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hi James Alexander, Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board? I can think of no reason why that should be a secret. Thanks, Fae On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander wrote: > Oh dear god

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I totally second James' invitation to avoid a certain tone, language and conspiracy theories. I will also add that the more those tone, language, and conspiracy theories are used in these threads, the *less* likely a good chunk of the community will participate in conversation. If we really want

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

10.01.2016 05:04 "Fæ" napisał(a): > > To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find > out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful > way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex. While I don't have, and never had (nor expect

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ wrote: > Thanks for talking about it Dariusz. > > Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being > discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of > the WMF board to follow without needing a year to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Thanks Dariusz, nice example declaration for the rest of the board to think about. I look forward to reading about the WMF board follow-up, as this is an easy win to demonstrate improved governance, at a time when we need to count a few quick wins in the good-will bank. Fae On 10 January 2016

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Thanks for talking about it Dariusz. Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If you want to check some best practice examples of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: >> Thanks for talking about it Dariusz. >> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being >> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of >> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Le 10/01/16 16:40, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit : On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ wrote: Thanks for talking about it Dariusz. Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ wrote: > > > Thanks for talking about it Dariusz. ​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​ Arnnon Geshuri ​ for a seat on the Board? Sarah​

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

> > > ​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​ > Arnnon Geshuri > ​ for a seat on the Board? > > AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know, and quite likely should not know who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Jan 10, 2016 12:33, "Florence Devouard" wrote: >>> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being >>> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of >>> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If >>> you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: ... > AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't > think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know, > and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > >> ​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​ >> Arnnon Geshuri >> ​ for a seat on the Board? >> >> > AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't > think we are going to now -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Milos Rancic wrote: >Our technology is based on the concept from 1990s, implemented in 2001 >and slightly changed up to the moment. The only major technology which >catches 2005 (Visual Editor) is in alpha or beta stage, depending on >how harsh QA process would be implemented. > >Something should

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, geni wrote: > On 9 January 2016 at 02:07, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On top of that, unlike Sue, Lila is a geek. And geeks have troubles in >> understanding the social impact of their actions, especially inside of >> the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On January 8, 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued "a short statement on recent comments by James Heilman". For completeness' sake, I'm pasting the text of that statement into this thread. --- Recently, James Heilman wrote, regarding his removal from the Wikimedia Foundation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he? A board made up to govern a community driven project filled with people no one voted in decides

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 9 January 2016 at 02:07, Milos Rancic wrote: > > > On top of that, unlike Sue, Lila is a geek. And geeks have troubles in > understanding the social impact of their actions, especially inside of > the extraordinary complex environment of Wikimedia movement. > You aren't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman : > > Our board made the decision to give Lila a > second chance in the face of staff mistrust. > Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this? Th. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Il 09/01/2016 01:08, Thomas Goldammer ha scritto: 2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman : Our board made the decision to give Lila a second chance in the face of staff mistrust. Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this? Th. I wonder how did this kind

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight dope. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Nathan wrote: > I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what > this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the > minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight > dope. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

James, all these things that you answered about - being out of process, disruption, ignoring advice - all of these were some of the things you explicitly apologized for just two weeks ago. Those were not my words, those are yours. Seeing you defend these, again, does this mean your apology was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I understand the situation that Denny, Dariusz, Patricio, et al are in and I appreciate their attempts to address this issue. As a new member of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, I've discovered that there is a great deal of anger about some of our decisions, and it is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Denny, regarding "I am regularly being told off with the false claim that my seat was bought by my employer - Google", I've never seen that absurd claim and certainly haven't made it myself. In a comment at The Signpost and here I've asserted that you have a fatal conflict of interest, being on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I got asked by a number of people to share my personal opinion, which is set out below, regarding the dismissal of James from the Board. This took me far longer to write than I hoped for, and it was very hard to write. I am not sure if this will change anyone’s mind - in fact, I am afraid that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > The English Wikipedia Signpost just published data from a recent staff > survey that shows extraordinarily low confidence in senior WMF > leadership;[1] and the WMF and Knight Foundations just published > information

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 07/01/16 06:44, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > -- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more > transparency. I'm inclined to believe James at this point, since he is the only one giving a credible explanation of causes. If he was not dismissed for this, then why was he

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, > I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. > And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

With respect to Denny's statement that I acted out of process, yes I spoke with staff at staff's request. However, so did the majority of the rest of the trustees. And the chair and vice chair were aware of these conversations. Additionally the situation in question justified these conversations

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Denny, there was very little substantive content in your email. As with the explanation from other trustees, this too, has the same markings of subterfuge and evasionary tactics. It has been established beyond doubt that there were "trust" issues. Repeating it or any variation thereof by another

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

While it's not hard to find a WMF employee who will privately (or increasingly, not-so-privately) complain of poor morale, I'd be wary of reading too much into submissions to sites like Glassdoor. Employees that are content rarely take the time to report this, so you end up with a skewed sample

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Ultimately this is about cost. Right now, the cheapest way for the board to get away with this is to publish some vague statements without really revealing anything, and hoping that the discussion will die down after a couple of weeks. As a community, we can drive up the cost of this strategy.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 5 January 2016 at 23:44, Patricio Lorente wrote: > We have also been meeting with the 2015 Election Committee regarding the > next steps for filling the open community-selected seat. As I pointed out recently, the phrase "community-selected" is misleading in this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Just a note that I am continuing to discuss the subjects of turnover and WMF employee morale with Boryana, and I have also asked Lila about this. Pine On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Craig Franklin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Transparently, I suppose? Thyge 2016-01-06 19:31 GMT+01:00 Pine W : > Just a note that I am continuing to discuss the subjects of turnover and > WMF employee morale with Boryana, and I have also asked Lila about this. > > Pine > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Andreas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Heh (: I have no problem with those emails being published. Just for clarification: I do believe that there is value in some confidential and 1-on-1 communications. Where I think there is room for change is with regards to a governing body of an open-source organization (in this case, the WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Craig Franklin wrote: > While it's not hard to find a WMF employee who will privately (or > increasingly, not-so-privately) complain of poor morale, I'd be wary of > reading too much into submissions to sites like Glassdoor. Employees

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I have begun a reply to the board Q & A here https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ=15213281#What_happened.3F Best -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Patricio, Thank you for your email. Some comments: 1. The document on Meta says, "Yes. James had - as all of us - access to all documents and information which he needed for his work and decision-making on the Board." That is a little different than the question that was being asked here. The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dear Patricio, Thank you for this. It clarifies several of the questions, although I'm confident community members will always have more. As a sidenote: It would have helped if you would have mentioned that a document with more information was forthcoming - even if it takes 8 days. Best,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Patricio Lorente wrote: > Dear all, > > We know that some of you have continued to have questions about the Board’s > recent resolution. We have put together an FAQ addressing some of the most > common or important questions. You can

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dear all, We know that some of you have continued to have questions about the Board’s recent resolution. We have put together an FAQ addressing some of the most common or important questions. You can view the FAQ here:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2016-01-04 2:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: Off the record, Obviously not - that was part of a different email I started. :-) -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Off the record, On 2016-01-04 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote: [...] whether there will be another employee survey. If there's a lot of dissatisfaction among the staff, the reasons for that dissatisfaction would be helpful to know. It would, wouldn't it? Old numbers may or may not be as interesting,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Pine W wrote: > If there's a lot of dissatisfaction among the staff, the reasons for that > dissatisfaction would be helpful to know. Some recurring themes on Glassdoor[1] over the years are – * Hiring of completely inexperienced staff *

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hi Stephen, > If that isn't the case and staff > are trying to communicate with the Board directly a lot, it is smoke > pointing to a burning fire somewhere. I seem to be missing something. Did I say anything contrary to that? Hi Marc, > Wouldn't that depend on whether the ED is acting at the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Pine, Given that the way James and the Board should relate to staff was one issue that lead to his removal, the situation in the wider WMF as an organization is highly relevant here. Under normal, smoothly-functioning circumstances (and most of my 4 year tenure at WMF) there was little reason

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2016-01-04 1:56 AM, Pine W wrote: I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration. But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board. Wouldn't that depend on whether the ED is acting at the behest of the board or not? -- Marc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hello everyone (+Pine), Thank you for reaching out. The HR team definitely keeps an eye on turnover on a regular basis. One of the first things I did when I started (approximately 3 months ago) is a stats health check including turnover trends, org demographics, compensation practices,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

> Eh I'd argue at this point we have a fairly good idea of what went on. > > We know from the high employee turnover in some areas and the odd slip > (well that and pretty direct complaints > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_Transparency_Gap=15199687=15199605 > ) that, oh lets

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration. But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board. I would appreciate it if we could keep that issue separate from the murky circumstances of James' departure and the conflicting testimony that has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

nt: Saturday, 02 January 2016 8:16 AM > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board > > "Peter Southwood" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > >> I agree. >> The situation may well be metast

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

There are helpful remedies to restore community confidence: 1. Hold an early election. To fill the community elected seat that James has now been forced to vacate. This would even allow James to re-run. 2. Leave James' seat empty until the next planned election. Though the seat *can* be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

, 02 January 2016 8:16 AM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board "Peter Southwood" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > I agree. > The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may get away >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter: This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize that there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care about retaining the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2 January 2016 at 10:41, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > The Baylaws call them " Community-selected Trustees" - not elected (sec. 3c > of art. IV) . But - as I pointed out earlier - the language used in public-and community facing communications refers to "elections"; and - as I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hi there, I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on the recent Board decision. These are my own thoughts, as a community-selected Board member who voted in the minority for the recent resolution. However, I also want to be clear that I support the outcome and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

could be on the way to resolve the matter at hand.   WR.   ‎ Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Gnangarra Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-01 22:11 GMT+01:00 Marcin Cieslak : > > Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida > statutes it seems) > that they were "community elected". > > Saper > The Baylaws call them " Community-selected Trustees" - not elected (sec. 3c of art. IV) .

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2016-01-02 09:37, Peter Southwood wrote: Just as you say. No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing community. If all else fails thy could just sell advertising Cheers, Peter This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in the past on a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

The sky isnt falling yes it wasnt optimally handled and yes it caught the community by surprise but lets be careful here. We cant sit back and enjoy the holiday season while expecting everyone else to be dropping everything and running into to the office

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hi all - Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that the sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made public and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Thanks for your thoughts Dariusz. It seems there is no WMF board commitment to a single measurable action as a result of this badly handled incident. I hope for a bit more than a classic "moving forward" message without learning anything new. The unelected are entrenched and deaf to volunteer

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hi Dariusz, governance is not a question mark that someone can mean as he wants. In this case the real problem is connected with the stakeholders, and this is an unsolved real problem of governance. As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the board of trustees

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

a.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2015 > From: a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk > Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 12:05:25 + > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board > > On 2 January 2016 at 10:41, Tomasz

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

hi Ilario, I don't want to fuel this discussion, so I'll just reply briefly and shut up :) Hi Dariusz, governance is not a question mark that someone can mean as he wants. In this case the real problem is connected with the stakeholders, and this is an unsolved real problem of governance. As

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dear Dariusz, Thank you for the response. I understand that you (and the board) want to move on. But there are in many organisations (and countries) certain powers that are 'excessive' - and I think expelling a board member is one of those. I agree there can be circumstances where this power has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

hi Ilario, I don't want to fuel this discussion, so I'll just reply briefly and shut up :) On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the board of trustees cannot dismiss it following the action

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dariusz, One of the things you said gives a different impression than Patricio's official statement in an important aspect. Specifically you said: > James knew what he did wrong, but he assumed that he could > effectively use a second chance. That seems to suggest that James made recent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

At this point, confidence in the Board has been weakened enough that no, we should not just move on. The confidence issue needs to be addressed. There are multiple ways of doing that. One is (far) more openness, as many others have suggested. Another is to have an impartial investigation of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

James Heilman writes: > > Dear all > > I have been accused of three things: > >1. > >Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board >decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the >board and have never given assurances

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2 January 2016 at 09:24, George Herbert wrote: > > So far the best description I can think of is that we have a bunch of > people who were there struggling to describe the situation without > breaching duty to the organization or resorting to attacks, the information

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Il giorno sab, 02/01/2016 alle 09.31 +0900, James Heilman ha scritto: > Dear all > > I have been accused of three things: > [...] Does the board agree that these three are the things contested to James? * Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board decisions; * Releasing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dear Doc James, and everyone, On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, James Heilman wrote: > I have been accused of three things: > >1. Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board >decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I appreciate your speaking up, Ben. If, while James was a board member, financial information was being withheld from him, that would indeed be another problem that should be included in the scope of an investigation of this situation by an outside party. It would also be troubling to me if there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2 January 2016 at 21:25, Kevin Gorman wrote: > Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf. Yes, thank you. These statements cast a much needed healthy light on the events leading up to James being kicked off the WMF board. ... > If documents were intentionally held from

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf. I'd been debating whether or not to gather more details about the handling of this event, or for just trying to make sure that procedures went more smoothly in case any further trustee was removed, but this calls for a direct question: were documents

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on issues where he has his

  1   2   3   >