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

Hoi, What is the point of this question. As if money is an issue in matters like this. When is it enough, why is it for you to want more and more and in the process make it less a Wikipedia thing and more something personal to you. The board decided on a quality team including outside council

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

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: > The formal task force was created end of October. This task force involved > outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. > What were the prime motivations for involving outside legal counsel, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He seems to be decent and intelligent. The Arnnon thing was an error but it was clearly part of a broader problem. Yes, they all need training but that seems to be in the works. I hope he stays, and is re-elected if he chooses to run next

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

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > While *some* of research ethics comes from the medical world - > particularly from the Belmont report and the Western-centric research > atrocities of the last century - much of it does not. Things like the > Zimbardo

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

While *some* of research ethics comes from the medical world - particularly from the Belmont report and the Western-centric research atrocities of the last century - much of it does not. Things like the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments have had a marked impact on our conceptualisation of

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

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Justin Senseney wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > > > +1 to that question, which is the biggest flag I have here. > > > > "The highest standards of confidentiality" is nice but, as you note, >

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

Denny, regarding "The formal task force was created end of October. This task force involved outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding." Who was on the task force, besides you and Patricio? What do you mean by "professional fact finding?" Regarding, "The official task force,

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

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > +1 to that question, which is the biggest flag I have here. > > "The highest standards of confidentiality" is nice but, as you note, > people presumably reached out to these individual Board members, > rather than the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fæ wrote: > [...] With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high > quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The > WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for > themselves, as

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

On 2 May 2016 at 23:27, James Heilman wrote: ... > On the other hand, I however, had requested multiple times before the > November board meeting to see what information those 5 investigation board > members were looking at. I was denied access to these details. Some of the >

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

WMF staff reached out to a few chosen Board members, including myself, specifically with a request to maintain confidentiality. They were afraid of retribution. We followed with an earnest but incomplete investigation. In early Oct I pushed for moving the investigation from the initial group of

[Wikimedia-l] How might interactive maps be used on Wikipedia?

Hello, The Maps team at the Wikimedia Foundation is getting closer to make it possible to add interactive maps to Wikipedia. If you've ever used services like Google Maps or Mapquest you may be familiar with interactive maps. We’d like to invite editors to

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

+1 to that question, which is the biggest flag I have here. "The highest standards of confidentiality" is nice but, as you note, people presumably reached out to these individual Board members, rather than the whole Board, because they felt the individuals could be trusted a lot better than the

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

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: > The protection of any personal or confidential information was, to the best > of my knowledge, at all time guaranteed and has not been compromised. The > official task force, set up by the Trustees, worked under the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 9

I have some comments on Denny’s summary of events but I would like to preface my comments by noting that I have Board experience. I served several years on the Board of an organization of professions, two years on a governmental board, and (currently) on the board of a non-profit organization. I

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

The protection of any personal or confidential information was, to the best of my knowledge, at all time guaranteed and has not been compromised. The official task force, set up by the Trustees, worked under the standards of keeping confidentiality, obviously. I thought this goes without saying,

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

Denny, you wrote: "I was particularly worried about James’ lack of understanding of confidential matters ..." But you seem to be saying that James wanted to respect the confidentiality that had been promised to staff. Sarah On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke

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

What Michel said... This is a very interesting story, but I'm left to imagine some crucial, looming details. I have no first-hand knowledge of what really happened, but your description of staff contacting a small number of Board members, and asking for confidentiality, strongly indicates that

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

Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it? Michel On 2 May 2016

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Johan Jönsson wrote: > One of the problems here is that much of the information about how the > Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different > parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g.

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

In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading to James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written while I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The text was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

> > That's great. Please do the right thing and take the initiative to > step down from the volunteer position of chair, so that someone with a > history of excellent judgment on trustee governance can take the > position. Again, *you* may think it's a good idea. I regard Dariusz to be one of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > The one reason why we would pay it is because the industry that prevents > people from finding citations is morally corrupt We need randomized anonymous double blind review for anything like this to be suitable for paid proofreaders. Frankly, the category

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Adam, > > Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's > relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization improving > in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

Hoi, Really. We have had a rough patch where management and people in the WMF were at odds. We have a rough patch where people for all kinds of reason decide to no longer be a member of the WMF board. It is no wonder that things are not as they should be as a consequence. When you add the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

On Monday, 2 May 2016, Brion Vibber wrote: > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes > wrote: > > > One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is > > not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on

[Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

Fae, > Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have > not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance > processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it." After > many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to > governance,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

On 2 May 2016 at 15:17, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: ... >> Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee >> >> responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are >> still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance >> process if

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

Dariusz*, * Thank you for continuing to engage with the community. Responding to highly critical voices in the movement is not fun. Beside the highly critical voices on the mailing list, there are many people who read this list and appreciate communication from you. Warm regards, Sydney Poore

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

Hello Fae, From my perspective, Dariusz is committed to improving the governance of Board. But, he is in a volunteer position, and is limited in the percentage of his time that he can devote to WMF Board business. Even if he personally was devoting 60 hours a week to reforming the Board, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is > not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely > being classifiable as a technology. > There is one use of Flash in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Fæ wrote: > Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have > not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance > processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it." I'm not sure if it is typical

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

Adam, Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization improving in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad consensus among staff is reached (as you express in footnote [1]),

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

Hi Dariusz, Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it." After many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to governance, nor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

02.05.2016 5:22 AM "Fæ" napisał(a): > > Perhaps we could stick to facts? > > In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees > proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the > community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

Perhaps we could stick to facts? In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part voted

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliate-selected Board seats voting started

Il giorno dom, 01/05/2016 alle 22.24 -0400, Benjamin Lees ha scritto: > This is still going on, right? Yes. The voting closes on Saturday. Lorenzo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

Hi Trillium, These are great questions to ask, thank you for keeping the privacy conversation on track! As a technical employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who would have been involved if we were planning significant changes to expand or limit tracking, I can confirm that nothing rotten is in