Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Brill Lyle]

I find this issue of Conflict of Interest exceedingly problematic.

Almost every person working and living today will have a conflict of
interest somehow, especially as one becomes a contributor to any of the
Wikimedia projects, gets to know people, tries to organize events or
promote the value of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc. Or if you work in any field
that specializes in anything online or technical. It is an impossible
situation.

I think that Wikimedia deals with this very badly -- and obviously at great
personal cost to talented, giving people. I am sorry.

And to the bigger problem: Wikimedia loses a smart person who has loads of
ideas and expertise -- and is a contributor to Wikidata (one of the best &
most exciting projects to be visited upon Wikimedia) because of this arcane
and quite frankly needing to be re-evaluated rule? I see this as one of the
many problems of Wikimedia.

EVERYONE has conflict of interest. We need the smartest and brightest minds
out there to contribute whatever they willingly can and will do on a
volunteer basis. How can they not have connections to the real world as
well as to online? Do we expect volunteers to be in their bunkers
somewhere, siloed from the world, that these clean folks are the ones to
move Wikimedia forward? It's laughable.

One thing Wikimedia seems to do quite well is torture people who want to
contribute by rules and policies that I think, quite frankly, are
unworkable.

Requiring some sort of absolute clean Conflict of Interest is an impossible
ideal. It is also obviously hurting the community.

There is much change happening. I think it's an opportunity for newbies
such as myself as well as folks with longer views to make things better. Or
these mistakes will continue to plague the Wikimedia community -- and we
will all lose out.

- Erika
*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 


On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Denny I am sorry to have lost a friend who is on the board but I am happy
> to welcome back a friend who can now express his ideas, his notions, his
> opposition, his point of view. Yes you work for Google. For me it means
> that you are again in an unique position to be an ambassador for both
> Google and WMF in either domain.
>
> You may have gained friends while on the board, the one sad thing is that
> it came at a huge cost to you personally. Nevermind what you do, I trust
> you to do well.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> On 8 April 2016 at 20:17, Denny Vrandecic 
> wrote:
>
> > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> >
> > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> able
> > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> align
> > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests
> -
> > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > employment.
> >
> > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> >
> > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
> even
> > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had
> to
> > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> >
> > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google.
> I
> > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> > the case.
> >
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate
> > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
> > As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> > actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> > could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> > Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> > "it is a Board-membe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Denny,

Thanks for explaining your reasoning, which hints towards a lack of
tolerance and understanding towards people wearing several hats. It doesn't
have an easy solution, as there is too much lack of trust.

The only thing I wish is that your decision enables you to participate in
the movement more effectively, and without any concern.

Looking forward to your new ideas!

Regards
Micru

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Hi Denny
> Your email is very interesting to understand the conflict you were
> experimenting to introduce innovation and good ideas in Wikimedia projects.
>
> In my opinion the biggest problem is the overlapping between direction and
> execution. Do you think that your action would be less efficient operating
> outside the board of trustees?
>
> Your opinion would be very appreciated because you are a good example of a
> member who can really address the decisions in an innovative direction but
> blocked by a strict definition of COI.
>
> Kind regards
> Il 08 Apr 2016 20:17, "Denny Vrandecic"  ha
> scritto:
>
> > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> >
> > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> able
> > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> align
> > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests
> -
> > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > employment.
> >
> > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> >
> > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
> even
> > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had
> to
> > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> >
> > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google.
> I
> > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> > the case.
> >
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate
> > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
> > As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> > actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> > could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> > Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> > "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler
> writing
> > that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
> >
> > It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> > with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> > advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> > you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> > creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to
> do
> > myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough -
> someone
> > will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> > smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was
> back
> > then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> > wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> > anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> > realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in
> a
> > reasonable timeframe.
> >
> > And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I
> cannot
> > take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will
> be
> > regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> > that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one
> deciding
> > on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Anders Wennersten]

Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:

leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
royal abdication or the result of failure.

Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would 
be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community 
election to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these 
reserves are to be elected by the Board if resignation occurs.
As the community election today only gives  three candidates for the 
Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner up, 
to be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first 
three. This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election 
community in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement 
for James by the Board.  To extend the same reasoning this time is 
stretching it a bit far, time since last election is further away, and 
number five in the election has at least by me never been seen as a 
runnerup. If the Board in their selection after a community election 
were to reject two candidates I would consider a reelection more 
relevant then to go further down the list .


But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for 
the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how 
could fill the empty seat after Danny


Anders

___
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] What can we learn

[Fæ]

Yes. The 'not' was implied. ;-)

Per future President Clinton, those were just my words.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-misspoke-over-claims-of-sniper-fire-in-visit-to-bosnia-800606.html

If only there was a way of writing text online that could be edited
after pressing the save button, someone should invent that.

Fae

On 9 April 2016 at 11:55, Andrew Lih  wrote:
> Did you miss a “not” in there?
>
> Fae said:
> “Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be
> made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”
>
> Suggested edit:
> “…leaving your seat should NOT be made to appear like a royal abdication or
> the result of failure.”
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests
>> or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board
>> could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest
>> beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid
>> volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
>> royal abdication or the result of failure.
>>
>> The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee,
>> of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is
>> something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default*
>> position should be that this information is public unless there are
>> jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be
>> carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether
>> it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a
>> standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For
>> example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade
>> never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public
>> minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that
>> interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of
>> apparent shame and drama.
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten 
>> wrote:
>> > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
>> mail
>> > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
>> resign
>> > the only reasonable way forward
>> >
>> > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
>> a
>> > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
>> > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
>> look
>> > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
>> > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
>> > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
>> >
>> > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
>> ordinary
>> > work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration
>> > hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength,
>> "Wikidata",
>> > is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re
>> this
>> > also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence
>> finds
>> > he has limited "value" for the board work.
>> >
>> > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
>> the
>> > ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
>> > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
>> > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
>> (lightweight)
>> > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
>> this
>> > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
>> > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
>> > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
>> > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
>> > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
>> > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
>> candidate
>> > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
>> > had helped?
>> >
>> > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
>> will
>> > probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the
>> > election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion
>> of
>> > learnings can start independently.
>> >
>> > Anders
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Andrew Lih]

Did you miss a “not” in there?

Fae said:
“Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be
made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”

Suggested edit:
“…leaving your seat should NOT be made to appear like a royal abdication or
the result of failure.”



On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests
> or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board
> could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest
> beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid
> volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
> royal abdication or the result of failure.
>
> The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee,
> of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is
> something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default*
> position should be that this information is public unless there are
> jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be
> carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether
> it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a
> standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For
> example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade
> never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public
> minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that
> interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of
> apparent shame and drama.
>
> Fae
>
> On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten 
> wrote:
> > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
> mail
> > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> resign
> > the only reasonable way forward
> >
> > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
> a
> > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
> look
> > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
> >
> > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> ordinary
> > work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration
> > hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength,
> "Wikidata",
> > is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re
> this
> > also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence
> finds
> > he has limited "value" for the board work.
> >
> > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> the
> > ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
> (lightweight)
> > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
> this
> > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
> candidate
> > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> > had helped?
> >
> > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> will
> > probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the
> > election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion
> of
> > learnings can start independently.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Fæ]

It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests
or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board
could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest
beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid
volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
royal abdication or the result of failure.

The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee,
of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is
something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default*
position should be that this information is public unless there are
jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be
carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether
it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a
standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For
example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade
never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public
minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that
interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of
apparent shame and drama.

Fae

On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten  wrote:
> I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail
> made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign
> the only reasonable way forward
>
> BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a
> year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look
> into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
>
> For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary
> work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration
> hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata",
> is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this
> also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence finds
> he has limited "value" for the board work.
>
> But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary the
> ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight)
> "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this
> risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate
> statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> had helped?
>
> The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it will
> probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the
> election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of
> learnings can start independently.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
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] What can we learn

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of
interest?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
> sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
> committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
> candidacy and to manage them better.
>
> Kind regards
> Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten"  ha
> scritto:
>
> > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
> mail
> > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> > resign the only reasonable way forward
> >
> > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
> a
> > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
> look
> > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
> >
> > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> > ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> > consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> > strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> > influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
> that
> > he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
> work.
> >
> > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> > the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
> (lightweight)
> > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
> this
> > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
> candidate
> > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> > had helped?
> >
> > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> > will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes
> in
> > the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> > discussion of learnings can start independently.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Ilario Valdelli]

What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
candidacy and to manage them better.

Kind regards
Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten"  ha
scritto:

> I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail
> made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> resign the only reasonable way forward
>
> BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a
> year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look
> into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
>
> For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and that
> he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board work.
>
> But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight)
> "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this
> risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate
> statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> had helped?
>
> The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in
> the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> discussion of learnings can start independently.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] [recent changes]

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi Denny
Your email is very interesting to understand the conflict you were
experimenting to introduce innovation and good ideas in Wikimedia projects.

In my opinion the biggest problem is the overlapping between direction and
execution. Do you think that your action would be less efficient operating
outside the board of trustees?

Your opinion would be very appreciated because you are a good example of a
member who can really address the decisions in an innovative direction but
blocked by a strict definition of COI.

Kind regards
Il 08 Apr 2016 20:17, "Denny Vrandecic"  ha
scritto:

> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
>
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
> to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
>
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
>
> This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
> though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
>
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> the case.
>
> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
>
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
>
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
> myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
> will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
> reasonable timeframe.
>
> And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
> take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
> regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
> on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
>
> I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
> bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
> exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
>
> I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
> of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
> C