Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Ivan Martínez]

In Mexico Virgin Mobile is offering since December 11 this service and of
course Wikipedia is announced as a part of the offer. With an intentional
way, in my opinion, because although our free licenses that allow reuse of
the Wikipedia contents, communication of this criticized service seems to
be an alliance that take advantage of the moral quality of Wikipedia to
attract confidence.

There are few voices[1] that point how Free Basics is an enemy of freedom
of internet as Electronic Frontier Foundation [2], Mexican NGO Red en
Defensa de los Derechos Digitales [3], Chilean NGO Derechos Digitales [4]
among others.

Will be nice if we can start the discussion as community and movement and
take action. I don't know if WMF have something in plans about Free Basics.

Regards,

[1]
https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-regarding-internetorg-net-neutrality-privacy-and-/935857379791271/
[2]
https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2015/09/facebooks-free-basics-more-open-better-security-still-walled-garden
[3]
https://r3d.mx/2015/12/15/facebook-da-internet-gratis-demasiado-bueno-para-ser-verdad/
[4]
https://www.derechosdigitales.org/9585/free-basics-expands-in-latin-america-cause-for-concern-or-potential-opportunity/




2015-12-30 19:49 GMT-06:00 Tito Dutta :

> Free Basics campaign is both confusing and misleading, They are posting ads
> around India "What net neutrality activists won’t tell you” etc.
> There are a number of good articles on the web. This one is one of my
> favourite:
>
> http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekeeper-or-free-basics-must-comply-with-net-neutrality-sunil-abraham-has-some-thoughts-1450954347.html
> I don't know anyone who supported it with its understanding. On the other
> hand a large number of my friends who signed this Facebook petition (I have
> talked to many of them) supported it without having any idea what they are
> supporting, In my opinion that's the worst part.
>
> On 31 December 2015 at 06:56, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such
> > initiative.
> >
> > I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
*Iván Martínez*


*Presidente - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid @protoplasmakid*

Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
https://donate.wikimedia.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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:

there are bigger questions than why like;

- how can this take place
- how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
future,
- what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
board

  The Florida statute(
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other
organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
or grouping.


IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members 
of that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members 
at all 
(https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP). 
 It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the 
director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not 
apply for the same reason.


To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that 
ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all 
possible why he was removed.


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] Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar? (for Pine?)

[Richard Ames]

And he is well under the soft limit!
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html

Happy New Year, Richard.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I
> thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list.

___
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 Mailing List Barnstar?

[Tito Dutta]

Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I
thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list. I also thought
to give him a barnstar for this. But, we do not have any "Wikimedia Mailing
list barnstar"

Should we create one? What do you think? If it sounds okay, someone of us
can go ahead and create Template:Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar on En WP
(and preferably on Meta also).
___
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] Free Basics

[Tito Dutta]

Free Basics campaign is both confusing and misleading, They are posting ads
around India "What net neutrality activists won’t tell you” etc.
There are a number of good articles on the web. This one is one of my
favourite:
http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekeeper-or-free-basics-must-comply-with-net-neutrality-sunil-abraham-has-some-thoughts-1450954347.html
I don't know anyone who supported it with its understanding. On the other
hand a large number of my friends who signed this Facebook petition (I have
talked to many of them) supported it without having any idea what they are
supporting, In my opinion that's the worst part.

On 31 December 2015 at 06:56, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such
> initiative.
>
> I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.
> ___
> 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] We need to talk about the WMF Board Pledge of personal commitment

[Cristian Consonni]

Hi all,

This discussion is somewhat inspired by what recently happened with
WMF Board of Trustees[1]. Please note that I was to respect the
request from the board (and James himself) to have some more time to
review the situation before providing more details about the recent
resolution.

In some sense, I am following what James said in an email[2]:
---
I have done what I believe is in the best interest of our movement.
---

The Wikimedia Foundation requires every board member to sign a "Pledge
of personal commitment"[3], in one passage it says:
«In every instance in which I represent the Wikimedia Foundation, I
will conduct my activities in a manner to best promote the interests
of Wikimedia Foundation.»

Compare this with the "FDC Pledge of Personal Commitment" signed by
FDC members[4]:
«I, [name], pledge to faithfully pursue the mission and goals of the
Wikimedia movement, namely to empower and engage people around the
world to collect and develop educational content under a free license
or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
globally. The FDC makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees
regarding the allocation of funds to support the mission goals of the
Wikimedia movement, and I therefore recognize my responsibility to
maintain the highest level of public confidence and trust.»

As a former FDC member I very much prefer the formulation adopted in
the FDC pledge rather than in the BoT pledge.

I think (and I have been thinking this for a while) that the Pledge of
commitment for trustees of WMF should mention the movement as well. In
some sense I am stating the obvious, but I would like the idea that
what constitutes "the best choice for the movement" takes priority
over "the best choice for the WMF", and this is board members pledge
to do.

I know that "doing what is best for the WMF" may be a legal
requirements for WMF board members, but I honestly do not think that
what is the best interest for the movement and what is the best
interest for WMF would ever be actually in conflict. In other words, I
would take the discussion of what constitutes a decision made with the
best interest of the movement in mind to be a debatable choice over
difference of views rather than a case of breaching the pledge because
some action may produce short term harm to the WMF (and thus be
breaching the pledge of commitment for BoT as it is written now) but
greater good in the middle/long term.

Thank you,

Cristian


[1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-30/News_and_notes
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Pledge_of_Commitment_and_Conflict_of_Interest_Questionnaire#FDC_Pledge_of_Personal_Commitment

___
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] Free Basics

[Milos Rancic]

Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such
initiative.

I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.
___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Robert Rohde]

Given the timing (less than a month after the last Board Meeting), and some
of the comments at Jimbo's talk, it seems likely that a special meeting was
called with the question of dismissing James from the Board as a major (and
perhaps only) topic.  However, no one has explicitly said if this was a
special meeting or whether there were any other topics on the Agenda.

Based on James statements, after the vote he was also ejected from the
meeting.  Presumably if the Board wanted to discuss a joint statement or
communication strategy then they could have asked him to stay for that
purpose.  No one has said whether there was any discussion of creating a
joint statement prior to this going public, though Jimbo said that he
wishes that James had waited to make the announcement "in a time and manner
that both his perspective and that of other board members could be
presented fully".  James also said that he had been encouraged to resign
for several weeks, so this clearly wasn't something that occurred as an
emergency with no opportunity to plan at all.

If the Board wanted a joint announcement and James refused, that would be
interesting.  If the Board wanted a joint announcement but neglected to
discuss that with James before ejecting him from the meeting, then that
suggests poor handling by the Board.

-Robert Rohde


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:25 PM, olatunde isaac 
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Wed,
> 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11
> To: 
> Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
>2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
>3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
>4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
>5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
>6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
> From: Nathan 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>  y...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
> the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
> fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
> about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
>  (talk
> ) 20:57, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
> that he was ejected from the b

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

[Anna Stillwell]

 James,

We’ve never spoken. I don’t know you personally, but I do know your
reputation throughout the movement. It is stellar. You are reported to be a
man of coherent and consistent principles.

I am writing to thank you for your years of service and your amazing
contributions to the projects thus far. I was so impressed with the work
that you've done on "ebola content" and translating it for the languages in
the geographies most impacted.

I don’t know what happened, but this has to be difficult for you. My
thoughts are with you.

Warmly,
/a

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> "For cause" can mean a lot of things - everything from getting drunk and
> plowing in to a crowd to embezzling money, to simply holding consistently
> different opinions than the rest of the board and continually voicing them.
> We won't know much more until the board statement (although, again, I'm
> surprised comms weren't pre-prepped,) but this is a really surprising
> situation, and I really hope the board makes a clear statement that
> justifies the removal beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Robert Rohde  wrote:
>
> > Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he
> > expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
> >
> > -Robert Rohde
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman  > > wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
> > > there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I
> have
> > > trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.
> > The
> > > board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
> > > member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
> > > removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
> > > better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will
> of
> > > two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
> > > good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
> > > remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising
> that
> > > board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
> > > I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
> > > allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to
> > be
> > > quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust
> in
> > > the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of
> wrongdoing
> > > by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation
> > where
> > > the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
> > > Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
> > > Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board
> > out
> > > of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
> > >
> > > Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
> > > shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I
> would
> > > hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending
> the
> > > time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
> > > Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
> > > Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia
> Canada
> > > and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
> > > wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and
> > it's
> > > concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
> > > remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian
> > as
> > > James.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > KG
> > > -sent from mobile.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
> > > reachout2is...@gmail.com >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still
> > ongoing
> > > as
> > > > > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It
> is
> > a
> > > > > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> > > > override
> > > > > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a
> parliament
> > > > where
> > > > > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > > > > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > > > > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority
> > vote
> > > of
> > > > > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set
> > forth
> > > > in
> > > > > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”.
> Based
> > on
> > > > > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > > > > I understand that majority of the community members who elected
> James
> > > are
> > > > > likely not to be aware of this p

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

[Kevin Gorman]

"For cause" can mean a lot of things - everything from getting drunk and
plowing in to a crowd to embezzling money, to simply holding consistently
different opinions than the rest of the board and continually voicing them.
We won't know much more until the board statement (although, again, I'm
surprised comms weren't pre-prepped,) but this is a really surprising
situation, and I really hope the board makes a clear statement that
justifies the removal beyond a shadow of a doubt.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Robert Rohde  wrote:

> Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he
> expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman  > wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
> > there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have
> > trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.
> The
> > board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
> > member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
> > removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
> > better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of
> > two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
> > good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
> > remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that
> > board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
> > I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
> > allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to
> be
> > quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in
> > the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing
> > by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation
> where
> > the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
> > Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
> > Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board
> out
> > of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
> >
> > Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
> > shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would
> > hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the
> > time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
> > Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
> > Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada
> > and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
> > wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and
> it's
> > concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
> > remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian
> as
> > James.
> >
> > Best,
> > KG
> > -sent from mobile.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan  > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
> > reachout2is...@gmail.com >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still
> ongoing
> > as
> > > > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is
> a
> > > > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> > > override
> > > > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
> > > where
> > > > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > > > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > > > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority
> vote
> > of
> > > > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set
> forth
> > > in
> > > > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based
> on
> > > > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > > > I understand that majority of the community members who elected James
> > are
> > > > likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it
> and
> > > will
> > > > probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> > > > remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> > > > community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported
> > his
> > > > removal.
> > > > The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from
> > the
> > > > board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> > > > James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Olatunde Isaac.
> > > > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
> > > >
> > > >
> > > He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a
> meeting...
> > > He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board
> meeting.
> > > After he lef

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

[Robert Rohde]

Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he
expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.

-Robert Rohde

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
> there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have
> trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.  The
> board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
> member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
> removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
> better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of
> two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
> good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
> remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that
> board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
> I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
> allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to be
> quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in
> the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing
> by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation where
> the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
> Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
> Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board out
> of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
>
> Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
> shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would
> hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the
> time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
> Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
> Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada
> and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
> wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and it's
> concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
> remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian as
> James.
>
> Best,
> KG
> -sent from mobile.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing
> as
> > > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> > > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> > override
> > > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
> > where
> > > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote
> of
> > > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth
> > in
> > > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> > > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > > I understand that majority of the community members who elected James
> are
> > > likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and
> > will
> > > probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> > > remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> > > community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported
> his
> > > removal.
> > > The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from
> the
> > > board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> > > James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Olatunde Isaac.
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
> > >
> > >
> > He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting...
> > He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting.
> > After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't
> > know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't
> > have done the same in his place.
> > ___
> > 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
> Unsub

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

[Kevin Gorman]

As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have
trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.  The
board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of
two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that
board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to be
quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in
the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing
by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation where
the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board out
of touch with the community it is intended to serve.

Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would
hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the
time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada
and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and it's
concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian as
James.

Best,
KG
-sent from mobile.


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> override
> > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
> where
> > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth
> in
> > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> > likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and
> will
> > probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> > remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> > community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> > removal.
> > The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> > board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> > James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Olatunde Isaac.
> > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
> >
> >
> He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting...
> He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting.
> After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't
> know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't
> have done the same in his place.
> ___
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Nathan]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac 
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
>
He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting...
He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting.
After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't
know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't
have done the same in his place.
___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Todd Allen]

I don't think it's a "silly idea" to immediately notify 1800+ voters that
they've been overruled by 8 people. I think it's something the Board
should've been prepared to do at once, with a full and complete rationale.
Instead, we keep hearing patronizing "Oh, we'll give you more information
sometime", with no indication of just when "sometime" might be.

Under the bylaws, James' removal was allowed, and if those comply with
Florida law (which, above, is somewhat doubtful) was legal. That doesn't
mean justified. It's legal for me to go around calling people horrible
names, but that's not appropriate or justifiable just because I have the
legal right to do it.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM, olatunde isaac 
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Wed,
> 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11
> To: 
> Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
>2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
>3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
>4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
>5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
>6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
> From: Nathan 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>  y...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
> the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
> fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
> about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
>  (talk
> ) 20:57, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
> that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
> uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
> to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
>
> James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
> told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
> complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
> silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
> preferred to control the narrative themselves.
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +
> From: Fæ 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Su

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015

[Pine W]

Hola Anna,

Gracias por el hermoso informe! ¿Qué software usaste para crearlo?

Por favor, ¿me puede decir dónde voy a encontrar su informe financiero?

Gracias,

Pine

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Anna Torres  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual
> Memorial 2015  regarding WMAR
> programs and activities.
>
> In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main
> programs and actions taken during 2015.
>
> Hope you all enjoy it!
>
> Hugs and happy new year!
>
>
> --
> Anna Torres Adell
> Directora Ejecutiva
> *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
> ___
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[olatunde isaac]

I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at 
the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! 
Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override the decision of 
the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where the house do not 
have the veto power to remove an elected member. 
Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
“Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the 
Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 
617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, 
James remover is justified!
I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are 
likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will 
probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover 
was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, 
Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal.
The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board 
as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.

Best,

Olatunde Isaac.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Wed, 30 
Dec 2015 19:10:11 
To: 
Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104

Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
   2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
   3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
   4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
   5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
   6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
From: Nathan 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
*against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
 (talk
) 20:57, 29
December 2015 (UTC)"

Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."

James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
preferred to control the narrative themselves.


--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +
From: Fæ 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to
make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".

The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be
given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own
comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes
played out.

Fae


--

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100
From: Thomas Goldammer 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the
fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided t

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

[Pine W]

Yes, we don't know yet what it was that James allegedly did. James may have
been very much in the wrong. However, we can also look at what the Board
and James are saying in public, and so far I am disappointed in how the
follow-up is being done. I hope that a joint statement from James and the
remaining board members will emerge, and that it will be comprehensive.

It's true that an overreaction to an incident can lead to bad policy.
However, an incident is also a learning opportunity, and potentially a
catalyst for change that strengthens the organization in the long run.

(: Yes, Cascadia's budget is tiny. However, I am also thinking of the State
of Washington, which has an annual operating budget of approximately $19
billion. The state has laws about public records and open meetings that are
quite extensive.

Pine



On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the
> what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that
> happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly.
> It may also be that it was disastrous.
>
> transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with
> 'quick', as was pointed out by some.
>
> Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for
> discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The
> transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the
> board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an
> open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal)
> membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have
> influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often
> say that incidents make bad policy.
>
> At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not
> quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not
> more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large
> also makes a different organisational structure.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items
> that
> > may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
> >
> > (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> > (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> > composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> > (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> > members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> > (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> > transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far
> more
> > of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> > includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> > government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> > this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that
> level
> > of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in
> public,
> > but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> > private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work,
> but
> > here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does
> that
> > can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself
> to
> > similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> > uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is
> not a
> > sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> > Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> > Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board
> meetings
> > (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> > level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> > organization.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation
> evolves.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > 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: 
http

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

[Lodewijk]

I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the
what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that
happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly.
It may also be that it was disastrous.

transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with
'quick', as was pointed out by some.

Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for
discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The
transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the
board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an
open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal)
membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have
influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often
say that incidents make bad policy.

At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not
quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not
more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large
also makes a different organisational structure.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
> may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
>
> (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
> of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
> of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
> but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
> here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
> can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
> similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
> sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
> (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> organization.
>
> It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Pine W]

Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:

(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
(2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
(3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
(4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
(with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
organization.

It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.

Pine
___
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 Argentina Memorial 2015

[Anna Torres]

Dear all,

Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual
Memorial 2015  regarding WMAR
programs and activities.

In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main
programs and actions taken during 2015.

Hope you all enjoy it!

Hugs and happy new year!


-- 
Anna Torres Adell
Directora Ejecutiva
*A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Thomas Goldammer]

@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the
fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you
out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.

The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for
the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned
ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately
and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there,
and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's
really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick.

Th.

2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan :

> "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
> the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
> fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
> about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
>  (talk
> ) 20:57, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
> that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
> uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
> to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
>
> James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
> told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
> complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
> silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
> preferred to control the narrative themselves.
> ___
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Fæ]

I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to
make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".

The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be
given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own
comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes
played out.

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, 

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

[Nathan]

"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
*against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
 (talk
) 20:57, 29
December 2015 (UTC)"

Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."

James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
preferred to control the narrative themselves.
___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Todd Allen]

I think the expectation is that, unless this truly was an emergency that
required immediate and unforeseen action, planning would have been done in
advance for the possible outcomes.

That wouldn't be making it a foregone conclusion, as Jimmy said. There
should have been plans for how to communicate an involuntary dismissal, how
to communicate a resignation, and how to go forward and put it behind them
if the removal vote failed.

Even if this was an emergency, there's now been plenty of time to urgently
handle the communication and do something besides stonewalling. We don't,
as of now, even have an expected time frame for a detailed answer.
On Dec 30, 2015 7:17 AM, "Nathan"  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> bjor...@wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 2015 12:33 AM, "Craig Franklin" 
> > wrote:
> > > but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> > > with the fallout of that decision.
> >
> > That, at least, was addressed in the text from Jimbo that you quoted:
>
>
> Not really, why should they expect him to stay silent about being fired
> while the Board takes its time drafting a press release? Can't blame James,
> especially when his obligation to the board and the foundation was
> terminated along with his position. We ought to be able to expect the board
> and its members to be prepared for the consequences of their decisions, and
> it would be a disservice to the board and the movement to expect less.
> ___
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Nathan]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)  wrote:

> On Dec 30, 2015 12:33 AM, "Craig Franklin" 
> wrote:
> > but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> > with the fallout of that decision.
>
> That, at least, was addressed in the text from Jimbo that you quoted:


Not really, why should they expect him to stay silent about being fired
while the Board takes its time drafting a press release? Can't blame James,
especially when his obligation to the board and the foundation was
terminated along with his position. We ought to be able to expect the board
and its members to be prepared for the consequences of their decisions, and
it would be a disservice to the board and the movement to expect less.
___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Brad Jorsch (Anomie)]

On Dec 30, 2015 12:33 AM, "Craig Franklin" 
wrote:
> but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> with the fallout of that decision.

That, at least, was addressed in the text from Jimbo that you quoted:

> >  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> > about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> > begun to discuss what an announcement should say.
___
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] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
"He who is without sin, throws the first stone". I read this article [1] in
Wired and it seems to me that Wikipedians, English Wikipedians at that have
plenty to do to get their own house in order. The topic was quality
particularly in Wikidata and it degenerated in a conversation that included
the Kazhak Wikipedia, the potential to manipulate information and whatever.

I am happy to say that quality is an issue. It is an issue for all of us.
However, I am firmly with Jane that once we have identified issues, we
should either come up with ways to make them manageable and/or
identifiable. The confrontation of 'sources or die' is easy" DIE. That is
not to say that sources are important but they hide too much and they too
are often and easily manipulated.

When quality is at issue, concentrate on that subject and for a moment
forget about secundary or tertiary caveats. If we can agree that our own
efforts, positively applied, will help us improve quality, we have a way
forward. There are micro and macro ways of improving quality. I give an
example of both.

Psychiatry and stigma are subjects woefully underdeveloped. I have added
one person and connected her to two award, a book, a few organisations,
people teaching at the University of Maastricht and several other people
occupied in this field. I asked her for additional information to expand
the field. This is a micro contribution and because of the links it has
quality.

A German University is interested to use Wikidata and wants to connect its
content to our content. They are happy to share their data and it is
important to them when their data is sourced to them. We are talking and it
may become a reality.

These are two ways of improving quality, one of them is explicitly about
sourcing. To me it is less in them being a source as them including their
reputation at the same time. The info I added about
"ervaringsdeskundigheid" is likely to be kept because it is well connected
and at some choice points sources are all too easy to include. Another
reason why it will stay is that my reputation is such that it is more than
likely correct. Even that is not so much of a concern because as more data
becomes available in Wikidata possible errors will be found and corrected.
(there are none as far as I am aware).

The point of this all? Quality is a goal, it is something that you achieve
by hard work. Wikipedia is a quality resource and it does have rough edges.
Wikidata is immature, underdeveloped and in need of all the love and care
it can get. Yes, there are secondary and tertiary concerns. But they should
not remove our attention of what is our main concern; the improved quality
that we can achieve only when we collaborate. At that Wikidata has plenty
to offer to Wikipedia already. In my opinion the easiest results are not so
much in the info boxes but more in revitalising the red links and removing
the many many links that are plain wrong.
Thanks,
GerardM

[1]
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/

On 8 December 2015 at 00:02, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Markus,
>
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 23:43, Markus Krötzsch  semantic-mediawiki.org>
>  40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BWikidata%5D%20%5BWikimedia-l%5D%20Quality%20issues&In-Reply-To=%3C565E30AB.6000709%40semantic-mediawiki.org%3E
> >
> wrote:
>
> > [I continue cross-posting for this reply, but it would make sense to
> > return the thread to the Wikidata list where it started, so as to avoid
> > partial discussions happening in many places.]
>
>
> Apologies for the late reply.
>
> While you indicated that you had crossposted this reply to
> Wikimedia-l, it didn't turn up in my inbox. I only saw it today, after
> Atlasowa pointed it out on the Signpost op-ed's talk page.[1]
>
>
> > On 27.11.2015 12:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > >* Wikipedia content is considered a reliable source in Wikidata, and
> *> >* Wikidata content is used as a reliable source by Google, where it
> *> >* appears without any indication of its provenance.*
>
> > This prompted me to reply. I wanted to write an email that merely says: >
> "Really? Where did you get this from?" (Google using Wikidata content)
>
> Multiple sources, including what appears to be your own research
> group's writing:[2]
>
> ---o0o---
>
> In December 2013, Google announced that their own collaboratively
> edited knowledge base, Freebase, is to be discontinued in favour of
> Wikidata, which gives Wikidata a prominent role as an in[p]ut for
> Google Knowledge Graph. The research group Knowledge Systems
>  is working
> in close cooperation with the development team behind Wikidata, and
> provides, e.g., the regular Wikidata RDF-Exports.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> > But then I read the rest ... so here you go ...
>
>
> > Your email mixes up many things and effects, some of which are important
> > issues (e.g., the fact that VIAF is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Congratulations to the first four organizations to receive Simple Annual Plan Grants!

[Santiago Navarro]

Thank you Winifred for your words. I remember a discussion with Katy 
Love in Mexico City and she shared with me that an APG needs very hard 
work. After seeing a simple APG process I can say, yes, she was right. 
This king of new grants is a new oportunity for groups that want to 
apply for their first annual grant. I know that we must work a lot to 
spend the money of the community the best as possible and get the more 
impact as possible.


I want to say thank you to Winifred, but also Katy, Kacie and all the 
people who helped us in with this. And of course, to the committee for 
their recommendations.


El 2015-12-29 20:10, Winifred Olliff escribió:

Dear Wikimedia colleagues:

In response to feedback about the grants process


that identified a gap in support for organizations and groups with 
annual

plans that are not part of the FDC process
, we on the WMF's 
Community
Resources Team created a new pilot process for Simple Annual Plan 
Grants
. These grants are 
for
groups and organizations that need funds for operating and program 
expenses

up to US$100K (or its equivalent in another currency).

This process has been developed in partnership with a committee of 
eight
volunteers 
,

who make recommendations about each grant application, which are then
approved by WMF staff. I would like to recognize the outstanding work 
of
our inaugural committee: Addis Wang, Anders Wennersten, Kiril 
Simeonovski,
Kirill Lokshin, Ido Ivri, Nataliia Tymkiv, Pete Ekman, and Sydney 
Poore.
Besides producing four quality recommendations this month (found on 
the

discussion pages of the four applications

),
they've done invaluable work to define how this new funding option 
will
work, and offered constructive and supportive feedback to the 
applicants.


I also want to recognize and congratulate our first four grantees:
Wikimedia Czech Republic, Wikimedia Eesti, Wikimedia Espana, and 
Shared
Knowledge (user group in Macedonia). Each grantee did an outstanding 
job
engaging during every phase of the grants process, and we are 
confident
that each is preparing for an amazing year in 2016. Many thanks to 
all of
the dedicated volunteers and staff at each organization that made 
these
quality applications happen, including Bojan Jankuloski, Jan Loužek, 
Kiril
Simeonevski, Kaarel Vaidla, Luis Ulzurrun, Santiago Navarro, Vojtěch 
Dostál
and the volunteer boards and supportive community members at each of 
these

organizations.

Finally, thank you to our colleagues Janice Tud, Siko Bouterse, 
Stephen
LaPorte, and the WMF finance team, for supporting these grantees 
behind the

scenes. Thanks to Katy Love, Kacie Harold, and the entire Community
Resources Team, past and current Funds Dissemination Committee 
members,

current and past APG applicants, and particularly Ravishankar
Ayyakkannu, for sharing their ideas and experiences leading up to 
this

idea. Special thanks also to Tony Souter and Bence Damokos for their
substantial feedback during the early phases of the pilot's 
development.


Are you interested in learning more about how the new funding option 
could
work for your group or organization? Please Email me to start a 
discussion
about your organization's application, and read more about how to 
apply

.
Applications will be accepted throughout 2016.

Best wishes and congratulations to all our colleagues who received 
grants

in 2015, or helped to improve the grants process!

Winifred

Helpful links for Simple Annual Plan Grants:
*Apply here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Eligibility
*About the program: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About
*Committee: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Committee


--
Santiago Navarro
Presidente
Wikimedia España
www.wikimedia.es

___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Craig Franklin]

I do think though that the longer the promised statement takes, the more
it'll look like spin rather than truth.  I agree that "rushed" is bad, but
"prompt" should still be a goal.  I suppose it doesn't help that
potentially some of the folks at WMF Legal are relaxing on a proverbial
beach on a Christmas getaway, blissfully unaware that this is happening.

Cheers,
Craig

On 30 December 2015 at 16:34, Pine W  wrote:

> I am not so ready to throw stones (: Perhaps because I have had one-on-one
> conversations with a number of people involved in this situation, and I
> would like to believe that they are all good people.
>
> Reports that are rushed can lead to mistaken conclusions. I'd rather get a
> comprehensive report than a rushed one. I do expect an explanation, soon,
> and I expect it will be provided with the kind of integrity and
> professionalism that I would hope everyone involved in this situation has.
>
> Pine
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Comet styles 
> wrote:
>
> > Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a
> > "false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
> > connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full
> > truth..
> >
> > On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin  wrote:
> > > Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo
> for
> > > filling in a few more details.
> > >
> > > Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
> > > emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
> > > awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
> > > this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case
> after
> > > the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
> > > speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but
> also
> > > for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
> > > explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in
> this
> > > way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to
> > deal
> > > with the fallout of that decision.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> > >> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> > >> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> > >> page, I have copied his comment below:
> > >>
> > >> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> > >> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> > >> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> > >> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> > >> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> > >> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> > >> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> > >> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> > >> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> > >> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> > >> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> > >> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> > >> December 2015 (UTC)"
> > >>
> > >> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> > >> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> > >> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> > >> aware of it..
> > >>
> > >> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> > >> should be circulated promptly.
> > >>
> > >> Newyorkbrad/IBM
> > >>
> > >> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki  wrote:
> > >> > The removal is not transparent at all.
> > >> >
> > >> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words
> > >> > different.
> > >> >
> > >> > Very disappointing.
> > >> >
> > >> >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> > >> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
> > >> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride 
> wrote:
> > >> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself,
> > at
> > >> >> > least
> > >> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to
> > be
> > >> >> > able
> > >> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of
> > >> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
> > >> >> > without
> > >> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> > >> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
> > >> simple
> > >> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work