Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

2016-05-04 Thread Isarra Yos
He isn't asking Dariusz to leave the board, but the position of chair of 
a particular committee on it. While I have no idea if this is called for 
either, it seems an important distinction.


-I

On 03/05/16 04:23, Anthony Cole wrote:

Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He 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
time.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:


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 you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
"missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
& Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
including major changes at the board level.
[...]
3.


https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf=5



The explanation for this, is at the top of

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
: "NB: In a mature 90-day goalsetting process, the “sweet spot” is for
about 75% of goals to be a success. Organizations that are meeting 100% of
their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals."
Note that partial successes are not also represented, if one just checks
the overview result; it's a simple binary system. See the textual notes for
details about partial successes within individual goals.
Plus, not reaching that 75% target of completely-successful goals, is
perhaps also attributable to the intense and widespread stress of that time
period...
Hope that helps.
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board update

2016-05-04 Thread MZMcBride
Patricio Lorente wrote:
> When Denny informed the Board that he was stepping down, we began to
>consider how we would move forward. We recognize the importance of
>filling the two vacancies on the Board, and would like to proceed in a
>way that respects the will of the community and responds to existing
>Board needs. The Board will be meeting in Berlin during the Wikimedia
>Conference on April 22nd and 23rd - during this time we will discuss how
>we should fill the open community-nominated and appointed Trustee seats.
> 
>
>I look forward to sharing more information with you in late April.

April has now come and gone. Is there any new information about filling
these two vacancies on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees?

In poking around to see if I had missed a post somewhere, I found this
on-wiki reply by Patricio from May 4, 2016:
.
 The reply is vaguely related to the vacant seats; I imagine its contents
will be of interest to this list.

MZMcBride



___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread jytdog
I like that, Pine.  I would add, procedure to disclose and manage conflicts
of interest that board members might have, in our context.  That would
bring in the matters around Denny's departure. Those four things.

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I will make a suggestion that I have made previously: that there should be
> an external firm, probably a law firm experienced with nonprofit
> governance, brought in to examine and publicize the facts regarding the
> Foundation's Board governance and to make recommendations for changes to
> policies and practices. Particular areas of concern are the facts
> surrounding James' departure, the Board's supervision of Lila, and the
> Amnon Geshuri situation from start to finish. There was a similar inquiry
> with WMUK's Board a few years ago, and it seems to me that a similar
> inquiry should happen at WMF.
>
> The continuing public disputes among current and former board members serve
> to illustrate that there is a major problem, and that the credibility of
> the Board as an effective institution remains in doubt. A partial remedy
> for this is a full and public accounting by a knowledgeable, experienced,
> and impartial inquiry. I feel that this would be in WMF's best interest in
> the long term.
>
> 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-04 Thread Gregory Varnum
Given the quickly approaching deadline, and the general support for affiliates 
voluntarily sharing if they voted (not who they voted for) - I went ahead 
(after chatting with folks that attended WikiCon) and setup a Meta-Wiki page to 
allow folks to voluntarily report back over the next couple of days:  
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Voted 


-greg (User:Varnent)


> On May 4, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen  
> wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
> board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
> ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
> really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
> achieve except for airing your formality?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> 
> On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
>> chapters'
>>> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Lane,
>> 
>> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
>> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
>> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
>> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>> 
>> If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
>> board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
>> "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
>> chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
>> those two board seats.
>> 
>> While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
>> important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
>> which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>> ___
>> 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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Pine W
I will make a suggestion that I have made previously: that there should be
an external firm, probably a law firm experienced with nonprofit
governance, brought in to examine and publicize the facts regarding the
Foundation's Board governance and to make recommendations for changes to
policies and practices. Particular areas of concern are the facts
surrounding James' departure, the Board's supervision of Lila, and the
Amnon Geshuri situation from start to finish. There was a similar inquiry
with WMUK's Board a few years ago, and it seems to me that a similar
inquiry should happen at WMF.

The continuing public disputes among current and former board members serve
to illustrate that there is a major problem, and that the credibility of
the Board as an effective institution remains in doubt. A partial remedy
for this is a full and public accounting by a knowledgeable, experienced,
and impartial inquiry. I feel that this would be in WMF's best interest in
the long term.

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, 


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

2016-05-04 Thread Tim Starling
On 05/05/16 11:10, Tim Starling wrote:
> In fact, employees disagreed with Lila's decision to pursue large
> restricted grants for a stupid pet project, in secret, supported by
> almost nobody, without Board knowledge let alone approval. This has
> nothing to do with education versus technology (if such a dichotomy
> can even be said to exist).

It's likely that at some point, someone said to Lila "I don't think
building a new Internet search engine to take on Google is within our
(educational) mission". Perhaps that's where her "strategic conflict"
story came from. It's a good point, but it's certainly not the only
problem with the proposal, and it wasn't the subject of the complaints
made against her. The conflict between Lila and the rest of the staff
was over process, not strategy.

-- Tim Starling


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

2016-05-04 Thread Risker
Just noting that 1700-1800 PDT on Wednesday May 11 is -0100 UTC on
Thursday May 12. Based on the link given, this seems to be when the meeting
will be held. Please verify.

Risker/Anne

On 4 May 2016 at 21:28, Pine W  wrote:

> Forwarding.
>
> Pine
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Katherine Maher" 
> Date: May 4, 2016 17:47
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to upcoming office hours with interim ED
> To: , , <
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> **Summary: I am delighted to invite you to join me for two upcoming office
> hours, where I’ll answer community questions and share updates on the
> Foundation’s work.**
>
> It’s been a busy few weeks around the Wikimedia Foundation offices. We
> shared our 2016-2017 annual plan, finished our quarterly reviews, and
> attended Wikimedia Conference 2016 in Berlin with the Wikimedia affiliates.
> [1]
>
> In Berlin, I had the chance to do one of my favorite things: sit with
> Wikimedians, listen, debate, and plan for the future. Of course, Berlin is
> just one gathering, and there are thousands of other perspectives out
> there. I want to hear more of these perspectives, and so I’m looking
> forward to hosting two office hours over the coming weeks.
>
> We plan to hold a traditional office hours on IRC, and will also experiment
> with a video Q We hope these different formats will make it easier for
> more people to participate using their preferred communications channels.
> We’ve chosen two different time zones, with the goal of reaching as many
> people as possible. They are as follows:
>
> *Video session*
> *This session will be recorded, and the video will be posted on
> Commons/Meta. Due to video conferencing limitations, we encourage advance
> questions.*
> Wednesday, 11 May 2016
> 00:00-1:00 UTC | 17:00-18:00 PDT [2]
>
> *IRC session*
> *This session follows the May monthly metrics meeting.[4] Like other office
> hours, it will be held in #Wikimedia-office on Freenode.*
> Thursday, 26 May 2016
> 19:00-20:00 UTC | 12:00-13:00 PDT [3]
>
> We’re also collecting questions in advance for those who can’t make either
> of those sessions. We’ve created a page on Meta where you can leave
> questions or comments, check the details on the location of each session:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Executive_Director/May_2016_office_hours
>
> Please share this invitation with others you think may be interested!
>
> I look forward to speaking soon,
> Katherine
>
> Translation notice - This message is available for translation on
> Meta-Wiki:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Executive_Director/May_2016_office_hours/Announcement
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016
> [2] Time converter link:
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=0=00=0=12=05=2016
> [3] Time converter link:
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=19=00=0=26=05=2016
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@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,
> 
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Katie Horn
It seems to me, that the question of whether or not we should consider
extending the scope of the whistleblower policy, can be reduced to a
question of whether or not we believe that United States law at any given
moment is an ideal representation of unacceptable conduct.

Either way, I would be deeply encouraged to see progress in creating a more
robust and predictable connection between the board and WMF staff. Whether
that connection ends up being a board liaison or something else, I suspect
that well-established lines of communication would go a very long way
toward eliminating the possibility that large numbers of staff will feel
like they have to disassemble the whistleblower policy in the first place.

-Katie

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Tim Starling 
wrote:

> On 04/05/16 12:02, MZMcBride wrote:
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy
> >
> > You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current
> > whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to
> > laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy indicates, to me at
> > least, that even alleged violations of other Wikimedia Foundation
> policies
> > would not be covered by the whistleblower policy. Would you extend the
> > Wikimedia Foundation whistleblower policy to cover regular (i.e.,
> > non-legal and non-regulatory) grievances?
>
> The third and fourth paragraphs are not so narrow, but otherwise, yes,
> I think it should be extended.
>
> > My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> sought
> > out and then appointed a tech-minded chief executive, who came from a
> tech
> > organization, in order to "transform" the Wikimedia Foundation from an
> > educational non-profit to be more like a traditional tech company. Many
> > employees of the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with this decision and
> the
> > chief executive made a series of poor hires who ran amok (looking at you,
> > Damon), but I don't think anything rose to the level of illegal behavior.
>
> You are just regurgitating Lila's email. No transformation was
> attempted or executed. The first time I heard about this supposed
> conflict over strategy was when Lila posted her claims about it to
> this list, shortly before her resignation.
>
> In fact, employees disagreed with Lila's decision to pursue large
> restricted grants for a stupid pet project, in secret, supported by
> almost nobody, without Board knowledge let alone approval. This has
> nothing to do with education versus technology (if such a dichotomy
> can even be said to exist).
>
> Damon merely suggested the project in question, he did not "run amok".
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> 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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Tim Starling
On 04/05/16 12:02, MZMcBride wrote:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy
> 
> You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current
> whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to
> laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy indicates, to me at
> least, that even alleged violations of other Wikimedia Foundation policies
> would not be covered by the whistleblower policy. Would you extend the
> Wikimedia Foundation whistleblower policy to cover regular (i.e.,
> non-legal and non-regulatory) grievances?

The third and fourth paragraphs are not so narrow, but otherwise, yes,
I think it should be extended.

> My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees sought
> out and then appointed a tech-minded chief executive, who came from a tech
> organization, in order to "transform" the Wikimedia Foundation from an
> educational non-profit to be more like a traditional tech company. Many
> employees of the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with this decision and the
> chief executive made a series of poor hires who ran amok (looking at you,
> Damon), but I don't think anything rose to the level of illegal behavior.

You are just regurgitating Lila's email. No transformation was
attempted or executed. The first time I heard about this supposed
conflict over strategy was when Lila posted her claims about it to
this list, shortly before her resignation.

In fact, employees disagreed with Lila's decision to pursue large
restricted grants for a stupid pet project, in secret, supported by
almost nobody, without Board knowledge let alone approval. This has
nothing to do with education versus technology (if such a dichotomy
can even be said to exist).

Damon merely suggested the project in question, he did not "run amok".

-- Tim Starling


___
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] Invitation to upcoming office hours with interim ED

2016-05-04 Thread Katherine Maher
Hi everyone,

**Summary: I am delighted to invite you to join me for two upcoming office
hours, where I’ll answer community questions and share updates on the
Foundation’s work.**

It’s been a busy few weeks around the Wikimedia Foundation offices. We
shared our 2016-2017 annual plan, finished our quarterly reviews, and
attended Wikimedia Conference 2016 in Berlin with the Wikimedia affiliates.
[1]

In Berlin, I had the chance to do one of my favorite things: sit with
Wikimedians, listen, debate, and plan for the future. Of course, Berlin is
just one gathering, and there are thousands of other perspectives out
there. I want to hear more of these perspectives, and so I’m looking
forward to hosting two office hours over the coming weeks.

We plan to hold a traditional office hours on IRC, and will also experiment
with a video Q We hope these different formats will make it easier for
more people to participate using their preferred communications channels.
We’ve chosen two different time zones, with the goal of reaching as many
people as possible. They are as follows:

*Video session*
*This session will be recorded, and the video will be posted on
Commons/Meta. Due to video conferencing limitations, we encourage advance
questions.*
Wednesday, 11 May 2016
00:00-1:00 UTC | 17:00-18:00 PDT [2]

*IRC session*
*This session follows the May monthly metrics meeting.[4] Like other office
hours, it will be held in #Wikimedia-office on Freenode.*
Thursday, 26 May 2016
19:00-20:00 UTC | 12:00-13:00 PDT [3]

We’re also collecting questions in advance for those who can’t make either
of those sessions. We’ve created a page on Meta where you can leave
questions or comments, check the details on the location of each session:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Executive_Director/May_2016_office_hours

Please share this invitation with others you think may be interested!

I look forward to speaking soon,
Katherine

Translation notice - This message is available for translation on
Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Executive_Director/May_2016_office_hours/Announcement

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016
[2] Time converter link:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=0=00=0=12=05=2016
[3] Time converter link:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=19=00=0=26=05=2016
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings


-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> 2) The whistleblower policy was indeed insufficient because even very
> serious ethical complaints raised did not rise to the level of strict
> illegality.
>

without referring to issues in the past, I think that a constructive way to
improve our governance would be to consider how our policies (including the
whistleblower policy) are adequate for all possible scenarios organizations
of our size and type may encounter.

One of the things that I personally would definitely like to discuss and
consider would be the staff liaison to the Board, present at the Board
meetings to some extent.

best,

dj

("pundit", current trustee)
___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Jake Orlowitz
In my personal opinion and recollection, two of the points raised above are
on-target:

1) Several staff, including myself, explicitly sought out Board members
whom they did not view as a directly loyal conduit to Lila, precisely
because they feared retribution from them/her.

2) The whistleblower policy was indeed insufficient because even very
serious ethical complaints raised did not rise to the level of strict
illegality.

We can do better.

Jake Orlowitz (Ocaasi)
___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-04 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
achieve except for airing your formality?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> chapters'
> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> >
>
>
> Lane,
>
> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>
> If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
> board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
> "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
> chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
> those two board seats.
>
> While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
> important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
> which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
> ___
> 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-04 Thread Lane Rasberry
@Andreas -

I am serving as an election facilitator in this process. That means I
volunteer to organize the election, but not that I have any rank or power
to set rules or to interpret the process. I have read what I can, and
talked to people, and I can probably answer easy questions about the
election and the nature of the board. I cannot give any authoritative
answer to deep questions like the one you asked.

My perspective is that no one can directly answer your question - not even
the WMF board itself. Whatever else the WMF board is legally, it is also
accountable to the Wikimedia community and must align itself to Wikimedia
community culture every three years or otherwise it seems positioned
because of this election structure to be completely replaced with radical
quickness. If the WMF board takes a position that conflicts with the
Wikimedia community then it could be elected out if the community wants to
correct the perspective. There are no other institutions like this anywhere
that elect 5 of ten board members then appoint the other 4, and have no
permanent touchstone with the board or institution itself. The board was
designed to be elected by Wikimedia community control from inception - 3
directly elected, 2 by authorized organizations, and those 5 appoint
another 4 and they better make a choice the community likes to fulfill
election promises.

If I were to answer your question, I would say to call this process an
election. It was intended to be an election at its founding. The community
of voting organizations and Wikimedia community stakeholders perceive it as
an election, even if some individuals have questions. The nature of the
board is to originate from elected approval from the Wikimedia community
and their closely watched representatives. People can imagine nuance in the
word "election" if they like but I do not know of a better word to call
this than "election". I think it is good to call the community selected
members "elected", despite what happened, and good for the community to
keep rather than divest the power it has always recognized and claimed to
elect the WMF board.

The reason why it is hard to answer your question is because you are asking
a legal question, and Wikimedia processes are designed to be human
understandable even if less legally precise. In human terms, "election" is
what this is called and how it should be imagined. I do not think that
anyone benefits from trying to legally analyze this and instead people
should emphasize the humanity of the process and build the precedent of
what this means in simple, human terms that everyone accepts as a cultural
norm. "Election"

yours,





On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
> board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
> ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
> really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
> achieve except for airing your formality?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > chapters'
> > > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> trustees.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Lane,
> >
> > A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is
> it
> > the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> > members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that
> the
> > sitting board is free to accept or reject?
> >
> > If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
> > board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
> > "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of
> the
> > chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
> > those two board seats.
> >
> > While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
> > important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
> > which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
> >
> > Best,
> > Andreas
> > ___
> > 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: 

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

2016-05-04 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
achieve except for airing your formality?
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> chapters'
> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> >
>
>
> Lane,
>
> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>
> If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
> board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
> "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
> chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
> those two board seats.
>
> While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
> important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
> which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
> ___
> 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-04 Thread Chris Keating
>
>
>> Such an issue should have been addressed and resolved during the
> eliligbilty process, not after the fact .
>

There are actually no eligibility criteria for this election, except that
candidates have received at least one endorsement from a Wikimedia chapter
or Thematic Organisation.

Given sufficient common sense from both the voting affiliates and the WMF
board itself, this isn't a problem.

Chris
___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-04 Thread Derek V.Giroulle



On 04-05-16 13:48, Chris Keating wrote:

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


As with the community elections, the WMF board needs to appoint the elected
candidates by resolution, and reserves the power not to do so. (I'd be
surprised if as keen an observer of the WMF board as yourself wasn't
already aware of this - it is quite well documented.)

Indeed, there are some circumstances where they should definitely not do
so. Imagine a candidate won in the election and then it was subsequently
revealed they had committed a serious fraud. It would be ridiculous to
expect the WMF Board to seat them in the light of that news.
Such an issue should have been addressed and resolved during the 
eliligbilty process, not after the fact .
If during a politicla election a candidate is not eliligible he will not 
be allowed to campaign let alone be on the condioate list. This issue 
was not addressed in a belgian election in the 1930,  and a candidate 
was elected out of prison ...

I take the point that the WMF is not greatly clear about its expectations
of trustee behaviour and a lot of it appears to rely on unwritten rules and
the views of other Board members. As a result it is not particular clear in
what range of circumstances the WMF board might exercise its power not to
appoint a candidate who'd been successful in the election, or to remove a
sitting Board member. (We have one case recently where people have been
outraged that someone was removed, and another case where people have been
outraged that it took a matter of weeks to remove someone else). However, I
think addressing that issue is rather more important than splitting the
semantic hairs about "selection", "election" and the like.

Regards,

Chris
(selection/election/suggestion/whatever facilitator)
___
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, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.

___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-04 Thread Chris Keating
>
> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>

As with the community elections, the WMF board needs to appoint the elected
candidates by resolution, and reserves the power not to do so. (I'd be
surprised if as keen an observer of the WMF board as yourself wasn't
already aware of this - it is quite well documented.)

Indeed, there are some circumstances where they should definitely not do
so. Imagine a candidate won in the election and then it was subsequently
revealed they had committed a serious fraud. It would be ridiculous to
expect the WMF Board to seat them in the light of that news.

I take the point that the WMF is not greatly clear about its expectations
of trustee behaviour and a lot of it appears to rely on unwritten rules and
the views of other Board members. As a result it is not particular clear in
what range of circumstances the WMF board might exercise its power not to
appoint a candidate who'd been successful in the election, or to remove a
sitting Board member. (We have one case recently where people have been
outraged that someone was removed, and another case where people have been
outraged that it took a matter of weeks to remove someone else). However, I
think addressing that issue is rather more important than splitting the
semantic hairs about "selection", "election" and the like.

Regards,

Chris
(selection/election/suggestion/whatever facilitator)
___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I would assume that people who spoke in confidence were ASKED if they
wanted to be included. It would be really bad to approach it in any other
way.

As to the knowledge engine. Can we please put it to rest. It has always
been a big misunderstanding. It is not and has never been what the WMF is
looking for and at the same time we could do so much better at search
(having said that we are doing so much better than we did before.

If there is one thing a knowledge engine would be good for is serving our
customers needs. THAT is scary; it is not about "us", the editing
community.. woopedie woo !!
Thanks,
GerardM

On 4 May 2016 at 12:24, Chris Keating  wrote:

> > I'd like to ask about *who* this "professional fact finding" process
> talked
> > to? I'm not asking to "name specific names" but more about which groups
> of
> > people.
> >
>
> I also wonder about this - I am sort of assuming that the people who were
> coming forward to raise grievances were included in the fact-finding. It
> would be odd not to ;)
>
>
> > - Were the Knight Foundation spoken with?
> >
>
> It might also be worth clarifying whether this was substantially related to
> the Knowledge Engine issue, or whether it was a largely separate set of
> grievances.
>
> While I'm using the word "grievance" - other people have talked about the
> "whistleblowing" policy - but what is being described here is what would in
> the UK be treated as a "workplace grievance". I.e. a staff member being
> concerned that, while their manager or another senior staff member isn't
> doing anything actually fraudulent or illegal, they do feel that the
> conduct of the manager concerned is having a serious impact on their own
> ability to do their job.
>
> Most UK employers have a formal grievance policy which sets out how staff
> should address these issues - including in the event that staff have a
> grievance about the chief executive or board members. Often these set out
> expectations about confidentiality and things like appeal processes.
> (Confidentiality can be a tricky one as a grievance is by its nature a
> communication from a staff member to their employer, and individual mangers
> or trustees actually can't promise to hear this stuff in confidence...)
>
> I don't know if WMF has one of these - perhaps is should?
> ___
> 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-04 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
>


Lane,

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

If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
"election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
those two board seats.

While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.

Best,
Andreas
___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Chris Keating
> I'd like to ask about *who* this "professional fact finding" process talked
> to? I'm not asking to "name specific names" but more about which groups of
> people.
>

I also wonder about this - I am sort of assuming that the people who were
coming forward to raise grievances were included in the fact-finding. It
would be odd not to ;)


> - Were the Knight Foundation spoken with?
>

It might also be worth clarifying whether this was substantially related to
the Knowledge Engine issue, or whether it was a largely separate set of
grievances.

While I'm using the word "grievance" - other people have talked about the
"whistleblowing" policy - but what is being described here is what would in
the UK be treated as a "workplace grievance". I.e. a staff member being
concerned that, while their manager or another senior staff member isn't
doing anything actually fraudulent or illegal, they do feel that the
conduct of the manager concerned is having a serious impact on their own
ability to do their job.

Most UK employers have a formal grievance policy which sets out how staff
should address these issues - including in the event that staff have a
grievance about the chief executive or board members. Often these set out
expectations about confidentiality and things like appeal processes.
(Confidentiality can be a tricky one as a grievance is by its nature a
communication from a staff member to their employer, and individual mangers
or trustees actually can't promise to hear this stuff in confidence...)

I don't know if WMF has one of these - perhaps is should?
___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Liam Wyatt
There are several important issues that people have raised here already -
notably the question of confidentiality of information; the question of the
membership of this "task force"; and the question of whether the
whistleblower process was effective/sufficient.

However, I'd like to refer to this point in particular:

On 2 May 2016 at 19:10, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> This task force involved
> outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first
> request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all documents
> and notes pertaining to the case.


I'd like to ask about *who* this "professional fact finding" process talked
to? I'm not asking to "name specific names" but more about which groups of
people. In particular:

- I assume that the C-level [senior] staff were interviewed, but were any
non-executive staff interviewed as well? This question speaks to the level
of detail/depth that this investigation was expecting to have... I would
think that if the "task force" was serious then it would be interested in
hearing from across the organisation at all levels, and directly from the
people affected. However, if it only spoke with people in the executive of
the organisation then it would only be hearing views that either had
already been relayed to [some] members of the board by the executive, or
the views of the executive themselves. Obviously the C-Level staff
themselves should have been interviewed, but ALSO other staff so that, at
the very least, it didn't appear to be just a token-effort at investigating
claims.

- Were the Knight Foundation spoken with? Given that the apparent disparity
between what was in the grant document and what (some) on the board thought
was being build in the "knowledge engine" project, it seems important to
know if the Knight Foundation genuinely was of the same understanding as
the Board? This disparity also seems to have been a core issue to the
concerns raised by by the staff, and in the concerns that were held by
James, so it seems particularly pertinent to be checking what the the
Knight Foundation's perspective actually was.

-Liam

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-04 Thread Andrea Zanni
Pardon my naivety,
but is it possible that "whistleblowers" didn't want the whole Board to know
their identity, because other Board members were very close to Lila?

It's pretty clear to me that there was serious fear of retribution (not
implying that
retribution was likely, just saying that the *fear* of that was real).

There is no guilt whatsoever
in being friend/close with Lila, but it just makes things *much* more
complex:
given that, whistleblowing staff probably did really want to remain
anonymous
and speak only with certain Board members.

Am I missing something?

Aubrey

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:02 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Tim Starling wrote:
> >Board members have a duty to act in the interests of the WMF as a
> >whole, but it does not follow that denying anonymity to whistleblowers
> >is in the best interests of the WMF. In fact, I think this Lila/KF/KE
> >case demonstrates the opposite.
> >
> >I would encourage the Board to extend the current whistleblower policy
> >to provide protection to employees making anonymous complaints via
> >certain intermediaries (such as active Board members), rather than
> >requiring complaints to be made directly to the Chair of the Board;
> >and to specify that the forwarding of such anonymous reports by Board
> >members to the Chair would be permissible.
> >
> >If we want to avoid a repeat of this affair, then employees should be
> >encouraged to communicate serious concerns to the Board as early as
> >possible.
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy
>
> You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current
> whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to
> laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy indicates, to me at
> least, that even alleged violations of other Wikimedia Foundation policies
> would not be covered by the whistleblower policy. Would you extend the
> Wikimedia Foundation whistleblower policy to cover regular (i.e.,
> non-legal and non-regulatory) grievances?
>
> My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees sought
> out and then appointed a tech-minded chief executive, who came from a tech
> organization, in order to "transform" the Wikimedia Foundation from an
> educational non-profit to be more like a traditional tech company. Many
> employees of the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with this decision and the
> chief executive made a series of poor hires who ran amok (looking at you,
> Damon), but I don't think anything rose to the level of illegal behavior.
>
> From my perspective, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the staff mutinied
> and ultimately successfully deposed the appointed executive director. I
> don't see how this whistleblower policy or most variations of it that a
> typical non-profit would enact would really be applicable here.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,