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

[Comet styles]

We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
coming out..

People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lieeveryone
knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
there is corruption at the highest order at WMFthe question is..
How deep does it go? ..

-- 
Cometstyles

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[philippe]

I don't believe that's "very clear" at all.  You yourself said "If what Ben 
said is true"  I think it's very possible - to the extent that Ben 
cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding. 

In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the sort you 
suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well connected. 

--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe.beaude...@icloud.com

> On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Comet styles  wrote:
> 
> We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
> like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
> free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
> longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
> issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
> transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
> is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
> longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
> coming out..
> 
> People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lieeveryone
> knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
> reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
> Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
> and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
> powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
> there is corruption at the highest order at WMFthe question is..
> How deep does it go? ..
> 
> -- 
> Cometstyles
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

Comet,
I'm currently of the mind that it would be a good idea to shine the bright
light of day on some of the situation inside of WMF to help us get a clear
picture of the facts, from which I hope we can draw reasonable conclusions
and help us to make choices that lead to improvements. At this time we have
a lot of speculation and causes for concern, but we are short on facts. I
agree that donors are likely to be interested in this situation and that it
should be investigated. While I share many of your concerns, I would
caution against going too far. I particularly cringe at your
characterization of the board members other than James; for all we know
their concerns about James may have been appropriate, even if we are
understandably upset at how they handled the situation.

So, while I too am disappointed with this situation, I would also suggest
that we need to be a little bit careful about how we talk about
speculation, allegations, and single-source reports. I would also urge you,
as much as possible even when you're angry, to be careful in your comments
that could step over the line between justified criticism and unjustified
personal attacks. Let's try to be civil, even when we're angry.

Thank you,
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Philippe Beaudette]

Kevin,

I disagree with nothing you’ve said here.  What I disagreed with was the 
characterization that “certainly” something untoward had taken place.

pb


> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> 
> Philippe -
> 
> I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest that
> such a thing is likely to happen.  Organizations and people change over
> time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has been
> dismissed.  Given the unusuality of the situation, in my opinion at least,
> given the *drastic* seriousness that something like deliberately
> withholding documents in such a manner under California state law (I can't
> speak with familiarity about Florida NPO governance,) and the fact that
> both the BoT and James could pretty easily give flat out answers to the
> question of whether or not they think it occurred, I think it's worth
> asking for those answers.
> 
> If James and the BoT agree that such withholding took place, I think it
> demands an outside review of WMF governance.  If James thinks it did, but
> the rest of the BoT disagrees.. given the general respect held for James'
> and the seriousness of the charge, I think an outside review of WMF
> governance is *still* probably reasonably necessary.  If neither thinks
> such withholding took place, then it settles a serious charge quite simply.
> 
> Best,
> KG
> 
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:01 PM,  wrote:
> 
>> I don't believe that's "very clear" at all.  You yourself said "If what
>> Ben said is true"  I think it's very possible - to the extent that Ben
>> cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding.
>> 
>> In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the
>> sort you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well
>> connected.
>> 
>> --
>> Philippe Beaudette
>> philippe.beaude...@icloud.com
>> 
>>> On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Comet styles  wrote:
>>> 
>>> We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
>>> like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
>>> free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
>>> longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
>>> issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
>>> transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
>>> is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
>>> longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
>>> coming out..
>>> 
>>> People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lieeveryone
>>> knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
>>> reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
>>> Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
>>> and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
>>> powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
>>> there is corruption at the highest order at WMFthe question is..
>>> How deep does it go? ..
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cometstyles
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Kevin Gorman]

Philippe -

I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest that
such a thing is likely to happen.  Organizations and people change over
time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has been
dismissed.  Given the unusuality of the situation, in my opinion at least,
given the *drastic* seriousness that something like deliberately
withholding documents in such a manner under California state law (I can't
speak with familiarity about Florida NPO governance,) and the fact that
both the BoT and James could pretty easily give flat out answers to the
question of whether or not they think it occurred, I think it's worth
asking for those answers.

If James and the BoT agree that such withholding took place, I think it
demands an outside review of WMF governance.  If James thinks it did, but
the rest of the BoT disagrees.. given the general respect held for James'
and the seriousness of the charge, I think an outside review of WMF
governance is *still* probably reasonably necessary.  If neither thinks
such withholding took place, then it settles a serious charge quite simply.

Best,
KG

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:01 PM,  wrote:

> I don't believe that's "very clear" at all.  You yourself said "If what
> Ben said is true"  I think it's very possible - to the extent that Ben
> cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding.
>
> In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the
> sort you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well
> connected.
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> philippe.beaude...@icloud.com
>
> > On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Comet styles  wrote:
> >
> > We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
> > like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
> > free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
> > longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
> > issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
> > transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
> > is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
> > longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
> > coming out..
> >
> > People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lieeveryone
> > knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
> > reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
> > Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
> > and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
> > powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
> > there is corruption at the highest order at WMFthe question is..
> > How deep does it go? ..
> >
> > --
> > Cometstyles
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Kevin Gorman]

Philippe -

Well - one of the things is - from all public indication from the BoT - it
doesn't appear that it's their current inclination to do something like
commission an outside review of the situation by a consultancy familiar
with Florida NPO governance.  I definitely don't want to pronounce early
judgement, but both public and private conversations have made me think
that this situation is worth a formal investigation, and allegations of
potentially intentionally withholding relevant documents from sitting
trustees just make me think even more than an outside review is
appropriate.  I hate wasting $20 or $40k of movement money on such a
review, but since, if substantiated and not resolved, thes allegations
could be so damaging to Wikimedia, I unfortunately think it's necessary
unless James speaks out against the idea.

Best,
KG

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> again, i disagree with little (if any) of what you say that.  I don’t
> agree with the characterization, prior to any sort of investigation, that
> something was absolutely wrong.  We don’t KNOW what’s gone on, is my point.
>
> So let’s not speculate until and unless an investigation is completed -
> and probably not then either.
>
> pb
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Comet styles  wrote:
> >
> > I'm quite aware of what James was trying to achieve
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Foundation) and I'm
> > fully in support of his ideas so if whatever he did was related to one
> > of those he mentions on the link, then its quite understandable why
> > right now I'm on his side  and not on the the other side...5 of whom
> > the community did not appoint (or trusts) and one who is there by
> > 'default'
> >
> > The issue is not what James did, it was the drastic step taken and
> > above all the silence in relation to this from the 'BoT' which has
> > become quite deafening..When you fire someone and them make a
> > statement regarding it and why, we all would have accepted it  and
> > possibly fought it if we had found it unjustified..but when you fire
> > someone and then run back into the hole...what are we to assume?..Its
> > too early to start an investigation since no one is forthcoming...so
> > speculation and allegations are the only things left... I'm not angry,
> > I personally don't care but I have seen too much nonsense by the
> > hierarchy over the last 5 years to allow another one to be swept under
> > the rug under the veil of "privacy" ...
> >
> > --
> > Cometstyles
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Greg Grossmeier]

> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
> want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
> I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
> numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs:
> "Look, this is not going to pass Gerard. Our options to do that are
> those. You should do this, I will do that."

Asaf's comment disagrees with this point. I can confirm that with myself
as well. James never promised me anything specific was going to happen
and never made a recommendation on what I should do.

Greg

-- 
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Milos Rancic]

This event puzzled me a lot, as I suppose it puzzles all of
Wikimedians who don't know what was happening inside of the Board last
couple of months.

On one side, although I am not active English Wikipedian, it's obvious
to me that James' integrity is on the mythical level. On the other
side, I know well seven of the other Board members and I am quite sure
they wouldn't do anything that stupid like removing community elected
Board member because differences in the vision of WMF future.

Patricio's and Dariusz's responses didn't help a lot. I was quite
angry on them because I just saw demagogy in their emails. Initially.

Then I read this Dariusz email and became angry again. But a cigarette
after I understood his political discourse. You know, politicians tend
to tell you so much nonsense around the information, that you simply
can't understand the information. But they do transfer the
information, as Dariusz did it.

After reading Daridusz's response, I read again Patricio's email from
December 31st and it definitely supported my understanding of the
situation.

The answer is not spectacular at all. It's about inner dynamics of the
Board and it could happen inside of any Board composition and with any
of the Board members, no matter of the vision of particular Board
member.

Before I tell you that quite unspectacular "truth", I want to say that
I completely understand both sides. From one perspective, I could
imagine myself in James' position; from the other one, the decision of
other Board members to protect Board's integrity seems quite
reasonable.

Imagine a situation when majority of Board members make one decision,
which staff don't like. That decision was a product of weeks or months
of discussion and it's almost certain that all the arguments were
processed very well.

James doesn't agree with that decision, as he sees that it could harm
some of the employees: it could be about layoffs or it could be just
about making things odd enough for some of the employees, that they
won't feel well doing their job anymore.

Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs:
"Look, this is not going to pass Gerard. Our options to do that are
those. You should do this, I will do that."

I suppose the situation could be more fuzzy: Board was preparing
decision; James saw some employees would be strongly against it; he
told that to them to try to influence the rest of the Board. It's
quite an issue to draw the line between transparency and disclosing
confidential information in such situations. And, as I told above, I
could easily do the same thing as James did.

What I see as a bottom line here is that the issue wasn't about
strategic or political disagreement, but about dynamics of one group,
which happened to be WMF Board. From that perspective, decision is
definitely up to that group, as well as I understand now James'
statement from the December 29th: "My fellow trustees need no reason
beyond lack of trust in me to justify my removal. No reason beyond
that is needed per our board by laws."


On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on the
> recent Board decision. These are my own thoughts, as a community-selected
> Board member who voted in the minority for the recent resolution. However,
> I also want to be clear that I support the outcome and the majority
> decision, and look forward to a new community Trustee. I hope that, even
> though you may continue to have questions, you will too.
>
> From my own perspective, the issue of "trust" had nothing to do with James’
> personal integrity. The Board however must ensure that members follow their
> duties and obligations in their roles as Trustees. My personal (not
> organizational) trust in James is 100%, in the sense that I would buy a car
> from him, and leave him the keys to my house without hesitation. James is
> an exceptional individual and an amazing Wikipedian. I feel privileged to
> know him.
>
> Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can
> explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself
> considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others
> reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and
> admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board
> member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also
> understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.
>
> I do want to comment on one point very important to me: This decision does
> not signal a shift on the Board’s attitude towards community
> representation, and does not alter our commitment to an active role 

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

[Comet styles]

Ofcourse you wouldn't see it, but still, as this issue kept dragging
on, things came to light and most of us here do not agree at all with
the outcome...James was elected by the community, he was not another
random person the community did not trust or hear of before being
added to the board which actually includes 5 of the sitting BoT
members none of whom actually have any knowledge on the basic
fundamentals of the project so to fire someone who understands this
and has given all to the project is downright sillyAgain, its
quite sad that they are dragging this on, it has been a few  days now
and we still have yet to get a clear answer and thus why all the
conspiracy theory is floating around...Surely James should not be
apologising for doing something right but as per my earlier comment,
he seems to be the 'scapegoat' for something much bigger...the main
question, What exactly did he do that he got fired?.

On 1/3/16, phili...@beaudette.me  wrote:
> I don't believe that's "very clear" at all.  You yourself said "If what Ben
> said is true"  I think it's very possible - to the extent that Ben
> cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding.
>
> In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the sort
> you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well connected.
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> philippe.beaude...@icloud.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Comet styles]

"My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me to
justify my removal. No reason beyond that is needed per our board by
laws."

Trust does go both ways, so its either 'The Hateful Eight' who are at
the wrong here or just 'James'...This firing comes around the time
when our Project goes into the Fund-raising drive so to take a drastic
step like this without providing a valid reason will not give faith to
the millions who donate to the foundation around this time.

Their action has not only affected the contributors who voted James
in, but those  that donated to the Foundation on an yearly basis..so
before another BoT member or supporter goes rambling on about the
'intricacies of the project, think twice..Its not only about the
contributors who voted James in losing faith in the BoT, its also
about the million others who donate to the foundation on an yearly
basis..No one will give money to an organisation that is rotting from
the insideso its best that they come clean on this issue by Monday
and more importantly, restore James to the BoT OR end up in a
situation where the ever-so polite community decides that they have
had enough of the 'tyranny'  and lack of transparency which as i said
before, is leaking to the lower level of the
foundationConspiracies and lies have toppled nations, this is just
a mere organisation, tread carefully..


On 1/3/16, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> This event puzzled me a lot, as I suppose it puzzles all of
> Wikimedians who don't know what was happening inside of the Board last
> couple of months.
>
> On one side, although I am not active English Wikipedian, it's obvious
> to me that James' integrity is on the mythical level. On the other
> side, I know well seven of the other Board members and I am quite sure
> they wouldn't do anything that stupid like removing community elected
> Board member because differences in the vision of WMF future.
>
> Patricio's and Dariusz's responses didn't help a lot. I was quite
> angry on them because I just saw demagogy in their emails. Initially.
>
> Then I read this Dariusz email and became angry again. But a cigarette
> after I understood his political discourse. You know, politicians tend
> to tell you so much nonsense around the information, that you simply
> can't understand the information. But they do transfer the
> information, as Dariusz did it.
>
> After reading Daridusz's response, I read again Patricio's email from
> December 31st and it definitely supported my understanding of the
> situation.
>
> The answer is not spectacular at all. It's about inner dynamics of the
> Board and it could happen inside of any Board composition and with any
> of the Board members, no matter of the vision of particular Board
> member.
>
> Before I tell you that quite unspectacular "truth", I want to say that
> I completely understand both sides. From one perspective, I could
> imagine myself in James' position; from the other one, the decision of
> other Board members to protect Board's integrity seems quite
> reasonable.
>
> Imagine a situation when majority of Board members make one decision,
> which staff don't like. That decision was a product of weeks or months
> of discussion and it's almost certain that all the arguments were
> processed very well.
>
> James doesn't agree with that decision, as he sees that it could harm
> some of the employees: it could be about layoffs or it could be just
> about making things odd enough for some of the employees, that they
> won't feel well doing their job anymore.
>
> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
> want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
> I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
> numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs:
> "Look, this is not going to pass Gerard. Our options to do that are
> those. You should do this, I will do that."
>
> I suppose the situation could be more fuzzy: Board was preparing
> decision; James saw some employees would be strongly against it; he
> told that to them to try to influence the rest of the Board. It's
> quite an issue to draw the line between transparency and disclosing
> confidential information in such situations. And, as I told above, I
> could easily do the same thing as James did.
>
> What I see as a bottom line here is that the issue wasn't about
> strategic or political disagreement, but about dynamics of one group,
> which happened to be WMF Board. From that perspective, decision is
> definitely up to that group, as well as I understand now James'
> statement from the December 29th: "My fellow trustees need no reason
> beyond lack of trust in me to justify my removal. No reason beyond
> that is needed per our board by laws."
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on 

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

[Comet styles]

I'm quite aware of what James was trying to achieve
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Foundation) and I'm
fully in support of his ideas so if whatever he did was related to one
of those he mentions on the link, then its quite understandable why
right now I'm on his side  and not on the the other side...5 of whom
the community did not appoint (or trusts) and one who is there by
'default'

The issue is not what James did, it was the drastic step taken and
above all the silence in relation to this from the 'BoT' which has
become quite deafening..When you fire someone and them make a
statement regarding it and why, we all would have accepted it  and
possibly fought it if we had found it unjustified..but when you fire
someone and then run back into the hole...what are we to assume?..Its
too early to start an investigation since no one is forthcoming...so
speculation and allegations are the only things left... I'm not angry,
I personally don't care but I have seen too much nonsense by the
hierarchy over the last 5 years to allow another one to be swept under
the rug under the veil of "privacy" ...

-- 
Cometstyles

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Kevin Gorman]

I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to emphasize that the
verbiage that certainly something untoward has taken place wasn't coming
from me, and would like to stress that to the rest of the list.  It's just
such a serious matter, that I believe outside investigation is almost
certainly warranted, unless James agrees that there was no such withholding
and additionally agrees that the degree of transparency with which his
removal took place is in line with both the law and the values of the
movement.  On the extreme end, under california NPO governance, there are
certain situations where such intentional document withholding could
actually risk eliminating the normal shield trustees enjoy for most of
their actions and making them personally liable, so it's a situation that's
weird enough that clearing it up with transparency and speed is in the best
interests of the Wikimedia movement.

Best,
KG

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> Kevin,
>
> I disagree with nothing you’ve said here.  What I disagreed with was the
> characterization that “certainly” something untoward had taken place.
>
> pb
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> >
> > Philippe -
> >
> > I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest
> that
> > such a thing is likely to happen.  Organizations and people change over
> > time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has
> been
> > dismissed.  Given the unusuality of the situation, in my opinion at
> least,
> > given the *drastic* seriousness that something like deliberately
> > withholding documents in such a manner under California state law (I
> can't
> > speak with familiarity about Florida NPO governance,) and the fact that
> > both the BoT and James could pretty easily give flat out answers to the
> > question of whether or not they think it occurred, I think it's worth
> > asking for those answers.
> >
> > If James and the BoT agree that such withholding took place, I think it
> > demands an outside review of WMF governance.  If James thinks it did, but
> > the rest of the BoT disagrees.. given the general respect held for James'
> > and the seriousness of the charge, I think an outside review of WMF
> > governance is *still* probably reasonably necessary.  If neither thinks
> > such withholding took place, then it settles a serious charge quite
> simply.
> >
> > Best,
> > KG
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:01 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> I don't believe that's "very clear" at all.  You yourself said "If what
> >> Ben said is true"  I think it's very possible - to the extent that
> Ben
> >> cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding.
> >>
> >> In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the
> >> sort you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well
> >> connected.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Philippe Beaudette
> >> philippe.beaude...@icloud.com
> >>
> >>> On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Comet styles 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
> >>> like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
> >>> free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
> >>> longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
> >>> issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
> >>> transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
> >>> is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
> >>> longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
> >>> coming out..
> >>>
> >>> People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lieeveryone
> >>> knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
> >>> reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
> >>> Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
> >>> and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
> >>> powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
> >>> there is corruption at the highest order at WMFthe question is..
> >>> How deep does it go? ..
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Cometstyles
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 

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

[Philippe Beaudette]

again, i disagree with little (if any) of what you say that.  I don’t agree 
with the characterization, prior to any sort of investigation, that something 
was absolutely wrong.  We don’t KNOW what’s gone on, is my point.

So let’s not speculate until and unless an investigation is completed - and 
probably not then either.

pb


> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Comet styles  wrote:
> 
> I'm quite aware of what James was trying to achieve
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Foundation) and I'm
> fully in support of his ideas so if whatever he did was related to one
> of those he mentions on the link, then its quite understandable why
> right now I'm on his side  and not on the the other side...5 of whom
> the community did not appoint (or trusts) and one who is there by
> 'default'
> 
> The issue is not what James did, it was the drastic step taken and
> above all the silence in relation to this from the 'BoT' which has
> become quite deafening..When you fire someone and them make a
> statement regarding it and why, we all would have accepted it  and
> possibly fought it if we had found it unjustified..but when you fire
> someone and then run back into the hole...what are we to assume?..Its
> too early to start an investigation since no one is forthcoming...so
> speculation and allegations are the only things left... I'm not angry,
> I personally don't care but I have seen too much nonsense by the
> hierarchy over the last 5 years to allow another one to be swept under
> the rug under the veil of "privacy" ...
> 
> -- 
> Cometstyles
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Greg Grossmeier  wrote:
> 
>> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
>> want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
>> I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
>> numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs:
>> "Look, this is not going to pass Gerard. Our options to do that are
>> those. You should do this, I will do that."
>
> Asaf's comment disagrees with this point. I can confirm that with myself
> as well. James never promised me anything specific was going to happen
> and never made a recommendation on what I should do.

It was clear from James' statement that he didn't promise anything and
I didn't say that.

Whatever else he said is a part of normal communication and I don't
see that as something bad.

While I really have no idea what exactly happened, I could see two
separate issues:

Obviously, there is one significant issue (or a couple of smaller)
over which Board has disagreement with James and (a part of) staff. We
don't know what it is and I'll start separate topic in relation to
that. That's relevant and we should talk about it.

The other issue, the one which triggered James' removal, is connected
to it, but formally quite different. I am quite sure that making one
action against the collective decision isn't something which would
trigger his removal. On the other hand, repeating those actions and
stance (which, I am sure, is quite ethical), could produce development
like this one.

Said so, I don't have an opinion in relation to James' removal; I just
gave description of what I see as the most probable reason. If I am
right, I am happy it's not a product of serious political
disagreements, as well as, on the other side, I don't like the timing.
Otherwise, I have no position and it's not because I want to be
"neutral" (I am sick of those willing to be "moderate", "neutral",
"balanced" [1]).

This problem should have been solved much earlier, without escalating
it to the point of Board member removal. I am also sick of thinking
about problems created in the past (months, years) because of lack of
cognitive abilities of participants at that point of time. The problem
is that it's always easier not to actively tackle solvable issues. And
it's endemic to our movement.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Craig Franklin]

I'd like to second this.  Getting to the point of dismissing a trustee,
whether they're community elected or not, is serious business.  There
should be an investigation conducted by an impartial external organisation,
not to lay blame or point the finger, but to recommend changes to make sure
it never happens again.

Cheers,
Craig

On 3 January 2016 at 04:54, Pine W  wrote:

> At this point, confidence in the Board has been weakened enough that no, we
> should not just move on. The confidence issue needs to be addressed. There
> are multiple ways of doing that. One is (far) more openness, as many others
> have suggested. Another is to have an impartial investigation of the facts
> in this case. The high trust of the community in James seems in start
> contrast with the actions of the Board. Perhaps there was a good reason for
> the Board to remove James, but the Board's handling of this situation
> (particularly Jimmy's, which I think has been flatly unacceptable) leaves
> much to be desired. The Board needs to think hard about, and take concrete
> actions to improve, the community and staff confidence in its governance.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Philippe Beaudette]

Quite right, I didn’t mean to imply (and in retrospect i understand a reading 
that would miss that detail) that the verbiage in question was yours.

It was not.

pb


> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> 
> I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to emphasize that the
> verbiage that certainly something untoward has taken place wasn't coming
> from me, and would like to stress that to the rest of the list.  It's just
> such a serious matter, that I believe outside investigation is almost
> certainly warranted, unless James agrees that there was no such withholding
> and additionally agrees that the degree of transparency with which his
> removal took place is in line with both the law and the values of the
> movement.  On the extreme end, under california NPO governance, there are
> certain situations where such intentional document withholding could
> actually risk eliminating the normal shield trustees enjoy for most of
> their actions and making them personally liable, so it's a situation that's
> weird enough that clearing it up with transparency and speed is in the best
> interests of the Wikimedia movement.
> 
> Best,
> KG
> 
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
> 
>> Kevin,
>> 
>> I disagree with nothing you’ve said here.  What I disagreed with was the
>> characterization that “certainly” something untoward had taken place.
>> 
>> pb
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Philippe -
>>> 
>>> I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest
>> that
>>> such a thing is likely to happen.  Organizations and people change over
>>> time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has
>> been
>>> dismissed.  Given the unusuality of the situation, in my opinion at
>> least,
>>> given the *drastic* seriousness that something like deliberately
>>> withholding documents in such a manner under California state law (I
>> can't
>>> speak with familiarity about Florida NPO governance,) and the fact that
>>> both the BoT and James could pretty easily give flat out answers to the
>>> question of whether or not they think it occurred, I think it's worth
>>> asking for those answers.
>>> 
>>> If James and the BoT agree that such withholding took place, I think it
>>> demands an outside review of WMF governance.  If James thinks it did, but
>>> the rest of the BoT disagrees.. given the general respect held for James'
>>> and the seriousness of the charge, I think an outside review of WMF
>>> governance is *still* probably reasonably necessary.  If neither thinks
>>> such withholding took place, then it settles a serious charge quite
>> simply.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> KG
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:01 PM,  wrote:
>>> 
 I don't believe that's "very clear" at all.  You yourself said "If what
 Ben said is true"  I think it's very possible - to the extent that
>> Ben
 cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding.
 
 In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the
 sort you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well
 connected.
 
 --
 Philippe Beaudette
 philippe.beaude...@icloud.com
 
> On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Comet styles 
>> wrote:
> 
> We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
> like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
> free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
> longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
> issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
> transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
> is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
> longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
> coming out..
> 
> People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lieeveryone
> knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
> reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
> Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
> and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
> powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
> there is corruption at the highest order at WMFthe question is..
> How deep does it go? ..
> 
> --
> Cometstyles
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 

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

[Pine W]

I think that a broader-scoped review would be beneficial, including a
review of the Board's alignment with nonprofit governance best practices,
especially with respect to best practices surrounding the decision to
dismiss James and the subsequent actions and comments of Board members. I
believe that WMF commissioned a similar report about WMUK in the past, so
there is precedent for doing this.

Pine

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Philippe -
>
> Well - one of the things is - from all public indication from the BoT - it
> doesn't appear that it's their current inclination to do something like
> commission an outside review of the situation by a consultancy familiar
> with Florida NPO governance.  I definitely don't want to pronounce early
> judgement, but both public and private conversations have made me think
> that this situation is worth a formal investigation, and allegations of
> potentially intentionally withholding relevant documents from sitting
> trustees just make me think even more than an outside review is
> appropriate.  I hate wasting $20 or $40k of movement money on such a
> review, but since, if substantiated and not resolved, thes allegations
> could be so damaging to Wikimedia, I unfortunately think it's necessary
> unless James speaks out against the idea.
>
> Best,
> KG
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Tim Landscheidt]

"Peter Southwood"  wrote:

> I agree.
> The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may
> get away with alienating the crowd for a long time, until it
> reaches a tipping point, when the reaction becomes
> catastrophic and non-reversible. At which point there will
> be a large number of people who will say they told them so,
> but it may well be too late to reassemble the
> debris. Something will survive , but maybe not Wikipedia as
> we know it. How far we are from the tipping point is
> anybody's guess. At present the vast majority of the crowd
> are probably totally unaware of the problems, but I
> personally would not bet the survival of Wikipedia against
> them staying and continuing to produce for free if there was
> a major walkout by the volunteers who currently keep the
> show on the road. Will the level of donations remain viable
> if the general public witnesses a meltdown? Would you bet on
> it?
> […]

That is irrelevant for threatening WMF.  If at some point in
time WMF would no longer raise enough funds, its staff would
just have to pick new jobs somewhere else (just like all
other employees do in a similar situation).  Working at WMF
probably has some amenities, but noone bases their decisions
on fears that as an effect their contract might be termi-
nated in ten or twenty years.  Even less so do trustees plan
that they can replace their summer holiday with a trip to
Wikimania till eternity.

And it's also irrelevant for writing an online encyclopedia.
You don't need the current level of funding as only a frac-
tion actually goes to expenditures necessary for /that/, and
if you have viewers, you will have (more than sufficient)
donations.

So while a reaction may be "catastrophic and non-re-
versible", if the possible effect is a minor nuisance at
worst, then it cannot be a motivating factor.

Tim


___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Vojtěch Dostál]

I'd like to comment on what Ryan has written about the responsibility of WMF to the 
community. Many of us aren't just anonymous editors of an encyclopedia - we also play a 
rather different role in the Wikimedia movement, spreading word about our goals and 
publicly raising awareness about Wikipedia. Usually, having a strong and capable 
Foundation behind our backs is an enormous advantage for many reasons and we are happy to 
be sharing the "Wikimedia" brand with it. In fact, I am so convinced of the 
importance of our movement that I voluntarily devote my whole free time working for it. 
For this reason, I am also extremely sensitive to actions which may harm the good name of 
the broader Wikimedia movement - such as, in this case, a lack of transparency in 
organizational governance, which opens doors to speculations. 
 
 

Vojtěch Dostál
Wikimedia Czech Republic
 
 
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg http://redir.netcentrum.cz/?noaudit=https%3A%2F%2Flists%2Ewikimedia%2Eorg%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwikimedia%2Dl>>wrote:>
 Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause, > or not!? > If they'd like to. 
 But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things,after what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and 
others, we canput a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of 
people, but that entitlesyou to nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount atMcDonalds, it 
doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won'tget you your next job.  Yes - our position as 
volunteers is important (ifnot critical) to the Foundation and its overall message.  But the so 
called"community" needs to realize their boundaries.People who keep demanding such things (such as a 
detailed report of whathappened) are showi
ng a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure- and perhaps other 
things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else ispiling on in opposition.-- 
RyanUser:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

Thank you for that statement, James.

I am principally concerned about an allegation that James leaked
confidential information. If that is true, then that could be a serious
problem and I can see how that would lead other trustees to feel that the
"least bad" option is to remove James from the Board. Also, if that
accusation is true, I think we as a community would be concerned about
James' suitability for other roles in the community that involve
confidentiality.

On the other hand, the Board's handling of this situation is a cause of
significant concern. Some of the Board's actions to this point have been
inconsistent with the standards of professionalism that I feel that the
employees, donors, and community would reasonably expect from one of the
world's most visible open-knowledge organizations.

I would propose an investigation into the facts and circumstances of this
situation by an outside party which has expertise in governance matters.

It seems to me that the alternative to an external investigation is to have
(another) long-running dispute about governance at WMF, which I think would
be a far worse outcome than anything resulting from an external
investigation that leads to public knowledge of the facts and appropriate
steps being taken to address any issues that come to light in the report.

I regret that we are dealing with this difficult situation on New Year's. I
hope that this is a learning opportunity for all of us.

Pine


> 2016-01-02 1:31 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > I have been accused of three things:
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
> >decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10%
> of
> > the
> >board and have never given assurances that I could convince other
> > trustees.
> >I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation
> but I
> >consider it unfounded.
> >
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
> >board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed
> for
> >greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I
> > have
> >made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and
> > community
> >members and used independent judgement.
> >
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
> >asked by other board members at any time before its publication to
> > produce
> >a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put
> > together a
> >few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by
> > myself
> >here
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
> >I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
> >purpose of producing such a statement.
> >
> >
> > I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
> > movement and the WMF.
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > ___
> > 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Thomas Goldammer]

First of all, a happy new year to everyone!

Thank you, James, for bringing at least some light into this blurriness.
For some more light, all board members, please do me a favor and explain
briefly how you see the relationship between transparency and our movement,
especially in your work as board members. And of course, please include how
this opinion is in line with your decision in James's case. I'd really like
to know what each of you thinks about that. Thanks. :)

Th.

2016-01-02 1:31 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :

> Dear all
>
> I have been accused of three things:
>
>
>1.
>
>Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
>decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of
> the
>board and have never given assurances that I could convince other
> trustees.
>I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
>consider it unfounded.
>
>
>
>1.
>
>Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
>board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
>greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I
> have
>made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and
> community
>members and used independent judgement.
>
>
>
>1.
>
>Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
>asked by other board members at any time before its publication to
> produce
>a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put
> together a
>few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by
> myself
>here
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
>I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
>purpose of producing such a statement.
>
>
> I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
> movement and the WMF.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Chris Keating]

On 1 Jan 2016 21:56, "Joseph Fox"  wrote:
>
> I imagine it would take something quite extraordinary for the board to
> reject the community election result outright, as it happens. I would
> assume the "nomination v selection" differential is to allow the board to
> remove members without fear of breaking Florida law, rather than some
> nefarious ploy by the board to stick it to the man.

I agree.

This hasn't happened in the last 10 years of WMF history. The fact it's
happened once  doesn't necessarily indicate that it will happen again in
the next 10 years.

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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Marcin Cieslak]

On 2016-01-01, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
> wrote:
>
>> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
>> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
>> possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
>> 
>> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
>> steps.
>
> There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
> this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
> by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
> "community nominated".

Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida statutes 
it seems)
that they were "community elected".

Saper


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Joseph Fox]

I imagine it would take something quite extraordinary for the board to
reject the community election result outright, as it happens. I would
assume the "nomination v selection" differential is to allow the board to
remove members without fear of breaking Florida law, rather than some
nefarious ploy by the board to stick it to the man.

Joe

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 at 21:11 Marcin Cieslak  wrote:

> On 2016-01-01, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> > On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
> >> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
> >> possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee
> >
> >> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
> >> steps.
> >
> > There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
> > this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
> > by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
> > "community nominated".
>
> Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida
> statutes it seems)
> that they were "community elected".
>
> Saper
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[James Heilman]

Dear all

I have been accused of three things:


   1.

   Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
   decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the
   board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees.
   I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
   consider it unfounded.



   1.

   Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
   board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
   greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have
   made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community
   members and used independent judgement.



   1.

   Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
   asked by other board members at any time before its publication to produce
   a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put together a
   few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by myself
   here
   https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
   I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
   purpose of producing such a statement.


I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
movement and the WMF.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Kevin Gorman]

Hi all -

What concerns me as much as anything about James' removal is his final
statement - "I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests
of the
movement and the WMF."  James has been active in the movement for a long
time in a variety of roles, and we have no reason to believe that this
statement is not true - in fact, even public statements from other trustees
so far have not contradicted it.  If James statements is to be taken at
face value, then he has in fact met his fiduciary duty to the WMF.
Trustees don't have an inherent duty of confidentiality - they have
inherent duties of loyalty, and inherent duties of care.  They *often* have
a derived duty of confidentiality, but that's a derived duty - disclosing
information related to an ongoing lawsuit to another party in a way that
would be harmful to WMF would violate the board member's duty of loyalty to
WMF.  Even though that's often spoken about as if it would be a problem
because of an inherent duty of confidentiality, except in situations
involving things like obligations to third parties (e.g., most issues of
staff discipline, or explicitly private details of a contract with a
 thrird party,) the root issue in the theoretical situation I described
would be breaking their duty of loyalty, not breaking their obligation to
hold an issue confidential.

I don't believe that James' announcement of his dismissal from the board is
potentially a broach of his fiduciary duty to the WMF.  Given the other
issues involved here, I find it reasonable - and I tend to agree with him -
that having an open, prompt, and transparent conversation about his
dismissal from the board and the reasons behind it is in the best interests
of the Wikimedia Foundation.  If he had been explicitly informed that the
rest of the board was in the process of crafting a public, detailed
statement about his dismissal, then this could potentially be an issue, but
it seems like he wasn't informed that that was the case, so I don't
understand how James' announcement of his own dismissal could be taken as a
breach of his fidicuiary duties.

Without knowing what specific information was involved, it's hard to gauge
whether James released confidential information in a way that was a breach
of his fiducuiary duties.  I will say that I've talked with James pretty
often during his tenure on the board, and although he's been quite frank
about his own opinions and about how he thought certain issues should be
approached, I do not believe he disclosed a single piece of information
that would reasonably be deemed confidential to me - and even if he had
disclosed information the board believed should be held confidential (and I
honestly don't believe he did,) unless there was a secondary obligation of
confidentiality (e.g., a contract with a hosting provider with a
nondisclosure clause,) doing so wouldn't inherently be a breach of his
fiduciary duties - if he disclosed such information to me (or anyone else)
because he thought that the benefit of our advice was outweighed by the
chance of us disclosing the information further, it still wouldn't
inherently represent a breach of his obligations to the board.  But again -
at least in conversations with me, he hasn't even gone that far.  From time
to time he has sought my opinion about particular issues, but he's done so
in a way that hasn't made anything apparent except at the most his own
personal opinion - in cases where he sought my advice, I wouldn't even have
been able to make a clear guess as to whether he was asking for advice
about an issue currently before the board, or an issue he was considering
bringing up in six months.

Speaking with staff presents a trickier issue than the first two, but still
isn't a black and white bad thing to do.  Board members are generally
encouraged to restrict their conversations to conversations with management
(so that they don't end up accidentally interfering with management issues,
since the primary role of board is governance,) but at the same time, if
they believe that in order to fulfill their fidicuciary duties they need to
have direct conversations with staff members, then legally, they would be
breaking their fiduciary duties if they *didn't* have those conversations.
While having them they should stress that they are interacting with the
staff members as individual board members, not representing management or
the BoT as a whole, and not trying to interfere with day to day management
of the organization - but it sounds like James tried to follow those
standards.  There's also a secondary issue; if a staff member approached a
board member with a concern that they believed could not be adequately
addressed within their normal leadership chain, the board member would be
absolutely remiss in not at least having a conversation with the staff
member.  If someone from fundraising had approached James with concerns
that management had somehow embezzled $100m, and those concerns turned out
to 

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

[geni]

On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente 
wrote:

> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
>

So can I see these conferings?

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Andy Mabbett]

On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
 wrote:

> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
> possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
> 
> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
> steps.

There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
"community nominated".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk




-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Todd Allen]

Patricio,

Jimmy Wales stated that the Board would work with James to provide a
statement. Could you please make clear if the final statement issued is
something he agreed to?
On Jan 1, 2016 1:15 AM, "geni"  wrote:

> On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente  >
> wrote:
>
> > We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy
> with
> > a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> > information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> >
>
> So can I see these conferings?
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Anthony Cole]

Matt, here
,
Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.

Anthony Cole 


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> wrote:

> On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>
>> - how can this take place
>> - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>> future,
>> - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>> board
>>
>>   The Florida statute(
>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>> other
>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>> or grouping.
>>
>
> IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members of
> that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members at
> all (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP).
> It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the
> director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not
> apply for the same reason.
>
> To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that
> ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all
> possible why he was removed.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[rupert THURNER]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> Matt, here
> ,
> Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.
>
> Anthony Cole 
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
> matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>>
>>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>>
>>> - how can this take place
>>> - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>> future,
>>> - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>> board
>>>
>>>   The Florida statute(
>>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>>> other
>>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>>> or grouping.
>>>
>>
>> IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members of
>> that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members at
>> all (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP).
>> It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the
>> director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not
>> apply for the same reason.
>>
>> To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that
>> ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all
>> possible why he was removed.

do the clauses from 617.0808 apply at all - as the bylaws explicitly
specify removal? "Trustees .. are understood to act as fiduciaries
with regard to the Foundation". "The Board will approve candidates who
receive the most votes". " Trustee may be removed, with or without
cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees".  the election page states
it like this: "Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity
to elect three candidates to a two-year term which will expire in
2017." the community is a class in the sense of 617.0808, and would
apply if the bylaws do not specify removal, isn't it?

jimmy wales btw wrote on his talk page "... this was a removal for
cause" and "I do not support any changes to the bylaws around the
composition of the board at this time. There is a very unhealthy and
plainly false view among some in the community that elected board
members are more supportive of the community than appointed. It
actually doesn't turn out that way in practice, and with good reason.
All board members have a fiduciary duty to the organization, which
means that caring about the community - the lifeblood of the
organization - comes naturally to everyone." :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales=revision=697407275=697403591

the whole story reminds me on what josh wrote in the ny times months ago:
The election — a record 5,000 voters turned out, nearly three times
the number from the previous election — was a rebuke to the status
quo; all three incumbents up for re-election were defeated, replaced
by critics of the superprotect measures. Two other members will leave
the 10-member board at the end of this year.
http://nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html

rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming, just as 
a matter of principle.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yaroslav M. Blanter
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF 
> board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out, 
> being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term 
> political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.
> 
> Fae

Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would run at 
the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately removed from the 
board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number of reasons, but I would 
seriously consider voting for him this time if he runs.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Patricio,

Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and
how and where it is defined for both current and former members?

Best,
Andreas

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Dear Patricio,
>
> Thank you for your response. However, I don't quite read an explanation in
> this email. You elaborate a little bit on process (nothing new or
> surprising there), and the only reason I can extract from your email is
> this:
>
> "Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were
> not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling [Trustee
> conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality]"
>
> Are we to expect an actual explanation still with the actual reasons why
> this decision was taken? Because this goes little further than the staff
> members that 'leave for personal reasons'. When a significant and serious
> step like this is taken, to remove a community selected board member, I do
> expect a better explanation from the board towards the electorate than
> this.
>
> I am looking forward to more - from you, from James or anyone else.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Patricio Lorente <
> patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> > decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> > Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
> >
> > I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to
> the
> > discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for
> the
> > decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> > and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome
> ahead
> > of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> > together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> > respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> > time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> > duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> > this decision as we would in others.
> >
> > I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a
> difference
> > of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> > other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> > multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> > responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> > Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> > understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> > as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> > essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm
> that
> > this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> > influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
> >
> > Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> > law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered),
> members
> > of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections
> are
> > then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> > the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the
> ability
> > to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working
> environment
> > required to be effective.
> >
> > As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand
> how
> > important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> > want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> > commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> > representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> > change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> > direction and strategy.
> >
> > We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy
> with
> > a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> > information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> > From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> > sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive
> part
> > of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> > collaboration with him.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >Patricio
> > --
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

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

[Fæ]

On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Patricio,
> Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and
> how and where it is defined for both current and former members?
> Best,
> Andreas

Anyone who has had trustee training can answer this. No trustee of any
charity/NGO is under a legally binding confidentiality agreement, for
good ethical reasons. Trustees *must* be free to blow the whistle for
the long term good of the organization without fear of petty civil
proceedings to shut them up. Trustees can *choose* to resolve any
issues whether personal or organizational behind closed doors, but
they are always free to act in a way that follows their ethics, even
though in practice this often means they will resign from the board at
the same time.

Jimmy Wales has seen fit to express his personal views about James in
public in a transparent and honest way; and James and the remaining
trustees are free to do exactly the same thing. There's no "Jimmy
clause" that our movement agreed to.

If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:

On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:



If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.

Fae


Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would 
run at the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately 
removed from the board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number 
of reasons, but I would seriously consider voting for him this time if 
he runs.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Patricio Lorente]

Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.

I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
this decision as we would in others.

I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.

Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
required to be effective.

As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
direction and strategy.

We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
with the 2015 Elections Committee.

From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
collaboration with him.

Thank you,

   Patricio
--
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to respond. However if they 
don't we are free to vote with our feet - or not.  The fundamental rule of 
crowdsourcing is 'do not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line, 
whatever they do is going to annoy somebody.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rjd0060
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for 
> cause, or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things, after 
what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can put a lot 
(no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles you to 
nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at McDonalds, it 
doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't get you your next 
job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if not critical) to the 
Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called "community" needs to 
realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is piling 
on in opposition.

-- 

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rjd0060
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for 
> cause, or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things, after 
what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can put a lot 
(no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles you to 
nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at McDonalds, it 
doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't get you your next 
job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if not critical) to the 
Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called "community" needs to 
realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is piling 
on in opposition.

-- 

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Lodewijk]

Dear Patricio,

Thank you for your response. However, I don't quite read an explanation in
this email. You elaborate a little bit on process (nothing new or
surprising there), and the only reason I can extract from your email is
this:

"Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were
not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling [Trustee
conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality]"

Are we to expect an actual explanation still with the actual reasons why
this decision was taken? Because this goes little further than the staff
members that 'leave for personal reasons'. When a significant and serious
step like this is taken, to remove a community selected board member, I do
expect a better explanation from the board towards the electorate than
this.

I am looking forward to more - from you, from James or anyone else.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Patricio Lorente <
patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
>
> I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
> discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
> decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
> of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> this decision as we would in others.
>
> I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
> of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
> this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
>
> Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
> of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
> then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
> to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
> required to be effective.
>
> As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
> important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> direction and strategy.
>
> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
> From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
> of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> collaboration with him.
>
> Thank you,
>
>Patricio
> --
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
or not!?
On 1 Jan 2016 12:03 am, "Patricio Lorente" 
wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
>
> I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
> discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
> decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
> of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> this decision as we would in others.
>
> I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
> of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
> this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
>
> Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
> of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
> then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
> to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
> required to be effective.
>
> As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
> important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> direction and strategy.
>
> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
> From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
> of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> collaboration with him.
>
> Thank you,
>
>Patricio
> --
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi Patricio,
a little question to understand.

Does it means that the majority of the board can dismiss the minority 
for some reasons?


I understand the effectiveness, but this sentence is a little bit critical.

Kind regards

On 31.12.2015 14:02, Patricio Lorente wrote:


Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
required to be effective.




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Rjd0060]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
> or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things,
after what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can
put a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles
you to nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at
McDonalds, it doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't
get you your next job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if
not critical) to the Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called
"community" needs to realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is
piling on in opposition.

-- 

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Tim Landscheidt]

"Peter Southwood"  wrote:

> You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to
> respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our
> feet - or not.  The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do
> not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line,
> whatever they do is going to annoy somebody.
> […]

By mid-December, they had crowdsourced USD 18.000.000 in
this campaign, so they seem to be on the right track.  If
volunteer editors would leave in a significant number, the
effect would be the same that we have seen for MediaWiki
development: "We need to raise /more/ money to employ some-
one to edit and update articles.  You want to keep Wikipedia
alive, don't you?"

All threats against the board or WMF in general are power-
less unless there is a viable alternative to Wikipedia for
volunteers that is /better/; at the moment there is not even
a clone that provides just the same data.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming,
> just as a matter of principle.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>


According to applicable Florida law,[1]

(f) Any director who is removed from the board is not eligible to stand for
reelection until the next annual meeting at which directors are elected.

[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808





> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
> Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:07 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>
> On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:
> > On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
> > board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
> > being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
> > political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.
> >
> > Fae
>
> Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would
> run at the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately
> removed from the board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number of
> reasons, but I would seriously consider voting for him this time if he runs.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Techman224]

But then again, these are not direct elections. The elections we have are just 
recommendations, and the board appoints community trustees based on those 
recommendations.

Techman224

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net <mailto:peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>> wrote:
> 
>> I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming,
>> just as a matter of principle.
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> 
> 
> 
> According to applicable Florida law,[1]
> 
> (f) Any director who is removed from the board is not eligible to stand for
> reelection until the next annual meeting at which directors are elected.
> 
> [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 
> <https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:07 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>> 
>> On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:
>>> On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
>>> board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
>>> being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
>>> political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.
>>> 
>>> Fae
>> 
>> Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would
>> run at the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately
>> removed from the board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number of
>> reasons, but I would seriously consider voting for him this time if he runs.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> 
>> ___
>> 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,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> 
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> <mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l 
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>>

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Pine W]

Regarding: "at the moment there is not even a clone that provides just the
same data.": creating an alternative host for a fork of Wikipedia is
possible, although labor-intensive and a bit capital-intensive, and it's
far from ideal. I feel that at this time the information available about
the governance of WMF, while deeply concerning, is short of the threshold
at which I would feel comfortable pursuing this option.

A reminder that we'll have 2 new trustees starting in January, and there
will be an election in 2016 for the affiliate-appointed trustees' seats. As
Yoda wisely said, "Always in motion is the future."

I'm contemplating a response to Patricio's email. I'm currently in the
difficult position of figuring out who to trust. It may take another day or
so for me to sift through my thoughts.

Pine

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> "Peter Southwood"  wrote:
>
> > You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to
> > respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our
> > feet - or not.  The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do
> > not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line,
> > whatever they do is going to annoy somebody.
> > […]
>
> By mid-December, they had crowdsourced USD 18.000.000 in
> this campaign, so they seem to be on the right track.  If
> volunteer editors would leave in a significant number, the
> effect would be the same that we have seen for MediaWiki
> development: "We need to raise /more/ money to employ some-
> one to edit and update articles.  You want to keep Wikipedia
> alive, don't you?"
>
> All threats against the board or WMF in general are power-
> less unless there is a viable alternative to Wikipedia for
> volunteers that is /better/; at the moment there is not even
> a clone that provides just the same data.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Kevin Gorman]

Patricio -

I understand that the final decision likely wasn't predecided going in to
the meeting, however, communications responses should have been prepared
for all likely outcomes, including a prepared statement to disseminate
immediately following the removal from the board of Jame Heilman.  Even if
he hadn't announced it himself, it should have been anticipated that people
would realize the removal had occurred - I'm aware of relatively few
WMF-related matters, even at a BoT level, that don't eventually leaked if
they aren't promptly announced.  When you see a candidate who just lost his
election giving a concession speech, he didn't write it after he heard the
election results - he likely had it 99% finalized days or weeks before he
lost the election (and this is true even of candidates who really, truly
expected to win their election.  I was an unpaid WMF comms intern some
years ago, and even then we regularly drafted statements in advance of it
being clear they were needed.  Since WMF comms has only become more
professionalized since my time there, I'm positive that this is still
standard practice for major issues for WMF comms. It might be a good idea
to speak with Katherine or someone else in WMF comms to guide the board in
best practices in communication on issues like this in the future.

Additionally, I'd like to correct you on another point: Florida trustees
don't have an absolute duty of confidentiality.  I suspected this given the
training I was given before being put on the board of a decently large body
incorporated in California, but just confirmed it with a Florida lawyer.
WMF Trustees have fidicuiary duties to the WMF; in practice, the two main
details this encompasses are (a) a duty of loyalty (an obligation to put
the interests of WMF above the interests of themselves and (b) a duty of
care (an obligation to carry out their trustee-related duties in a way that
an ordinary and prudent person would carry out the management of their own
affairs - or if you're a lawyer etc, a an obligation to carry out your
trustee-related duties in a way that a lawyer of average skill and prudence
would.)  Many other duties derive from these two, but don't override them.
Frequently, a duty of confidentiality is involved - for instance,
disclosing material that would hurt WMF in an ongoing lawsuit against WMF
would be a violation of your obligation to maintain confidentiality - but
that obligation only exists (barring an outside contract with another
organization) as a derivative of your duties of loyalty and your duties of
care.  If you believe that prompt disclosure of the details of whatever
happen w/r/t James is in the interests of WMF (examples of why it might be
in the interests of WMF: failing to promptly disclose as many details as
reasonably possible could significantly damage comunity trust in WMF, or
generate significant bad press for WMF,) then you most likely don't only
not have a duty of confidentiality that stops you from closing, you may
actually have a positive duty to disclose depending on how significant you
believe that consequences of failing to disclose would be.

I don't have sekrit knowledge about why James was removed, but knowing him,
and reading your last email, I'm going to venture a guess that James may
have wanted WMF board meetings to be more transparent, or he may have
wanted to seek the counsel of community members not on the board about
issues in front of the board.  In fact, he may have felt that failing to
seek outside advice on some issues or failing to make WMF board meetings in
general would have represented a violation of his fidicuiary duties of
loyalty and care.  I really hope that the Board comes out with a more
complete statement in the immediate future, because speculation about is
going on during a high tension situation like this is never a good thing.
Dariusz would never have opposed his removal if it was 'for cause' if that
cause was something like James violating his fidicuiary duties in the sense
of leaking sensitive details to the press, leaking info to people suing
WMF, engaging in outright theft, etc. I have a feeling that James' removal
did relate to him desiring increased transparency, and that does make me
distinctly nervous,

Andreas: by my reading of that, it would mean that even if he were a
directly elected trustee (and the BoT sees to suggest that he wasn't a
directly elected trustee, but just a community recommended trustee that the
WMF BoT chose to accept) he wouldn't be able to stand in special elections
- e.g., an election to replace his own vacant seat - but seems to suggest
that he would be able to stand in the next set of regular community
elections.

Patricio: I would really invite you to talk with Katherine about how best
to handle board communications issues in the future.  This is something
where much more detailed statements should have been prepared in advance,
in case they were needed - if it turned out they weren't needed, it

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

[George Herbert]

TLDR version:

We are not yet convinced James was not removed for doing what he was elected to 
do.

I have good faith in everyone involved, and the capacity and intent to withhold 
judgement for a while, but the explanations so far have not helped.  This is 
not transparent enough.  As everyone who's been around for a while knows, lack 
of transparency will cause strife worse than any good faith disagreement.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> 
> Patricio -
> 
> I understand that the final decision likely wasn't predecided going in to
> the meeting, however, communications responses should have been prepared
> for all likely outcomes, including a prepared statement to disseminate
> immediately following the removal from the board of Jame Heilman.  Even if
> he hadn't announced it himself, it should have been anticipated that people
> would realize the removal had occurred - I'm aware of relatively few
> WMF-related matters, even at a BoT level, that don't eventually leaked if
> they aren't promptly announced.  When you see a candidate who just lost his
> election giving a concession speech, he didn't write it after he heard the
> election results - he likely had it 99% finalized days or weeks before he
> lost the election (and this is true even of candidates who really, truly
> expected to win their election.  I was an unpaid WMF comms intern some
> years ago, and even then we regularly drafted statements in advance of it
> being clear they were needed.  Since WMF comms has only become more
> professionalized since my time there, I'm positive that this is still
> standard practice for major issues for WMF comms. It might be a good idea
> to speak with Katherine or someone else in WMF comms to guide the board in
> best practices in communication on issues like this in the future.
> 
> Additionally, I'd like to correct you on another point: Florida trustees
> don't have an absolute duty of confidentiality.  I suspected this given the
> training I was given before being put on the board of a decently large body
> incorporated in California, but just confirmed it with a Florida lawyer.
> WMF Trustees have fidicuiary duties to the WMF; in practice, the two main
> details this encompasses are (a) a duty of loyalty (an obligation to put
> the interests of WMF above the interests of themselves and (b) a duty of
> care (an obligation to carry out their trustee-related duties in a way that
> an ordinary and prudent person would carry out the management of their own
> affairs - or if you're a lawyer etc, a an obligation to carry out your
> trustee-related duties in a way that a lawyer of average skill and prudence
> would.)  Many other duties derive from these two, but don't override them.
> Frequently, a duty of confidentiality is involved - for instance,
> disclosing material that would hurt WMF in an ongoing lawsuit against WMF
> would be a violation of your obligation to maintain confidentiality - but
> that obligation only exists (barring an outside contract with another
> organization) as a derivative of your duties of loyalty and your duties of
> care.  If you believe that prompt disclosure of the details of whatever
> happen w/r/t James is in the interests of WMF (examples of why it might be
> in the interests of WMF: failing to promptly disclose as many details as
> reasonably possible could significantly damage comunity trust in WMF, or
> generate significant bad press for WMF,) then you most likely don't only
> not have a duty of confidentiality that stops you from closing, you may
> actually have a positive duty to disclose depending on how significant you
> believe that consequences of failing to disclose would be.
> 
> I don't have sekrit knowledge about why James was removed, but knowing him,
> and reading your last email, I'm going to venture a guess that James may
> have wanted WMF board meetings to be more transparent, or he may have
> wanted to seek the counsel of community members not on the board about
> issues in front of the board.  In fact, he may have felt that failing to
> seek outside advice on some issues or failing to make WMF board meetings in
> general would have represented a violation of his fidicuiary duties of
> loyalty and care.  I really hope that the Board comes out with a more
> complete statement in the immediate future, because speculation about is
> going on during a high tension situation like this is never a good thing.
> Dariusz would never have opposed his removal if it was 'for cause' if that
> cause was something like James violating his fidicuiary duties in the sense
> of leaking sensitive details to the press, leaking info to people suing
> WMF, engaging in outright theft, etc. I have a feeling that James' removal
> did relate to him desiring increased transparency, and that does make me
> distinctly nervous,
> 
> Andreas: by my reading of that, it would mean that even if he were a
> 

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

[Sam Klein]

I just want to echo this.

James, I do know you personally, and am better for it.  Thank you for your
tireless efforts to improve information and health around the world, and for
the thought you give to how the projects can flourish and multiply.

Warmly,
Sj


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

>  James,
>
> We’ve never spoken. I don’t know you personally, but I do know your
> reputation throughout the movement. It is stellar. You are reported to be a
> man of coherent and consistent principles.
>
> I am writing to thank you for your years of service and your amazing
> contributions to the projects thus far. I was so impressed with the work
> that you've done on "ebola content" and translating it for the languages in
> the geographies most impacted.
>
> I don’t know what happened, but this has to be difficult for you. My
> thoughts are with you.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 12/31/2015 08:02 AM, Patricio Lorente wrote:

Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.

I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
discussions on this thread.


Thank you for providing a clearer picture.  I understand the board 
members are bound in what exactly they can say.


I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with the decision 
you made, but I have a better understanding of its basis.


Matt Flaschen


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 12/31/2015 04:07 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:

Matt, here
,
Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.


Thanks, I appreciate you forwarding this.

Matt Flaschen


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Craig Franklin]

Jimbo has stated on Jimbo-talk that this was a removal for cause:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407200

He also mentions on that page that he and others tried to talk Heilman into
resigning quietly, but he chose to make the BoT push him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407110

Given this, it's entirely unsurprising that he didn't see a need to aid the
trustees by announcing his departure on a timetable convenient to them.
I'm actually a little shocked that Patricio and Jimbo didn't see that
coming and seem shocked that it happened.

Cheers,
Craig

On 1 January 2016 at 00:02, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
> or not!?
> On 1 Jan 2016 12:03 am, "Patricio Lorente" 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> > decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> > Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
> >
> > I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to
> the
> > discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for
> the
> > decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> > and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome
> ahead
> > of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> > together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> > respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> > time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> > duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> > this decision as we would in others.
> >
> > I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a
> difference
> > of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> > other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> > multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> > responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> > Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> > understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> > as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> > essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm
> that
> > this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> > influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
> >
> > Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> > law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered),
> members
> > of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections
> are
> > then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> > the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the
> ability
> > to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working
> environment
> > required to be effective.
> >
> > As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand
> how
> > important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> > want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> > commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> > representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> > change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> > direction and strategy.
> >
> > We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy
> with
> > a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> > information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> > From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> > sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive
> part
> > of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> > collaboration with him.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >Patricio
> > --
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

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

[Arjuna Rao Chavala]

Hi Patricio,


I am saddened to hear that the discussions about governance had to result
in removal of a board member.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Patricio Lorente <
patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations.
>

It would be useful for the community to know the revised code of conduct,
responsibilities, which the board has agreed on. If such a thing is not
available, it would also help if you can inform the date by which it is
available.  This  would also help for any potential candidates for the next
election/appointment.

Best regards

Arjuna Rao Chavala
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

I agree.
The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may get away with 
alienating the crowd for a long time, until it reaches a tipping point, when 
the reaction becomes catastrophic and non-reversible. At which point there will 
be a large number of people who will say they told them so, but it may well be 
too late to reassemble the debris. Something will survive , but maybe not 
Wikipedia as we know it. How far we are from the tipping point is anybody's 
guess. At present the vast majority of the crowd are probably totally unaware 
of the problems, but I personally would not bet the survival of Wikipedia 
against them staying and continuing to produce for free if there was a major 
walkout by the volunteers who currently keep the show on the road. Will the 
level of donations remain viable if the general public witnesses a meltdown? 
Would you bet on it?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Tim Landscheidt
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 9:20 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

"Peter Southwood" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to respond. However 
> if they don't we are free to vote with our feet - or not.  The 
> fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do not alienate your crowd'. 
> They tread a delicate line, whatever they do is going to annoy 
> somebody.
> […]

By mid-December, they had crowdsourced USD 18.000.000 in this campaign, so they 
seem to be on the right track.  If volunteer editors would leave in a 
significant number, the effect would be the same that we have seen for MediaWiki
development: "We need to raise /more/ money to employ some- one to edit and 
update articles.  You want to keep Wikipedia alive, don't you?"

All threats against the board or WMF in general are power- less unless there is 
a viable alternative to Wikipedia for volunteers that is /better/; at the 
moment there is not even a clone that provides just the same data.

Tim


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11298 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Matthew Flaschen]

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

there are bigger questions than why like;

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

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


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


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


Matt Flaschen

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Thomas Goldammer]

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

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

Th.

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

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

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

[Pine W]

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

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

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

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

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

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

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

Pine



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

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

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

[Lodewijk]

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

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

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

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

Lodewijk

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

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

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

[olatunde isaac]

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

Best,

Olatunde Isaac.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

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

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

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

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

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


Today's Topics:

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


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
From: Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:

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

[Todd Allen]

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

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

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM, olatunde isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Wed,
> 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11
> To: <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
>2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
>3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
>4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
>5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
>6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
>
>
> --------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
> From: Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
> 

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

[Anna Stillwell]

 James,

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

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

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

Warmly,
/a

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

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

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

[Kevin Gorman]

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

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

Best,
KG
-sent from mobile.


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

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

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

[Robert Rohde]

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

-Robert Rohde

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

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

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

[Kevin Gorman]

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

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

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

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

[Nathan]

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

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

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

[Robert Rohde]

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

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

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

-Robert Rohde


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:25 PM, olatunde isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Wed,
> 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11
> To: <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
>2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
>3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
>4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
>5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
>6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
>
>
> ------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
> From: Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
> 

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

[Craig Franklin]

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

Cheers,
Craig

On 30 December 2015 at 16:34, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not so ready to throw stones (: Perhaps because I have had one-on-one
> conversations with a number of people involved in this situation, and I
> would like to believe that they are all good people.
>
> Reports that are rushed can lead to mistaken conclusions. I'd rather get a
> comprehensive report than a rushed one. I do expect an explanation, soon,
> and I expect it will be provided with the kind of integrity and
> professionalism that I would hope everyone involved in this situation has.
>
> Pine
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Comet styles <cometsty...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a
> > "false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
> > connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full
> > truth..
> >
> > On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> > > Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo
> for
> > > filling in a few more details.
> > >
> > > Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
> > > emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
> > > awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
> > > this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case
> after
> > > the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
> > > speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but
> also
> > > for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
> > > explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in
> this
> > > way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to
> > deal
> > > with the fallout of that decision.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> > >> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> > >> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> > >> page, I have copied his comment below:
> > >>
> > >> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> > >> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> > >> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> > >> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> > >> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> > >> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> > >> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> > >> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> > >> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> > >> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> > >> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> > >> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> > >> December 2015 (UTC)"
> > >>
> > >> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> > >> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> > >> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> > >> aware of it..
> > >>
> > >> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> > >> should be circulated promptly.
> > >>
> > >> Newyorkbrad/IBM
> > >>
> > >> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:
> > >> > The removal is not transparent at all.
> > >> >
> > >> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words
> > >> > different.
> > >> >
> > >> > Very 

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

[Brad Jorsch (Anomie)]

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

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

> >  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> > about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> > begun to discuss what an announcement should say.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Nathan]

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

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


Not really, why should they expect him to stay silent about being fired
while the Board takes its time drafting a press release? Can't blame James,
especially when his obligation to the board and the foundation was
terminated along with his position. We ought to be able to expect the board
and its members to be prepared for the consequences of their decisions, and
it would be a disservice to the board and the movement to expect less.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Todd Allen]

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

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

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

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

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

[Nathan]

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

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

James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
preferred to control the narrative themselves.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

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

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

Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

The removal is not transparent at all.

Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.

Very disappointing.

> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> 
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
> 
> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
> transparent.
> 
> best,
> rupert
> 
> ___
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Newyorkbrad]

I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
page, I have copied his comment below:

"Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
December 2015 (UTC)"

I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
aware of it..

I also agree that the information about the two new board members
should be circulated promptly.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:
> The removal is not transparent at all.
>
> Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.
>
> Very disappointing.
>
>> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
>> > least
>> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
>> > able
>> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
>> > without
>> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
>> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
>> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
>>
>> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
>> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
>> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
>> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
>> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
>> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
>> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
>> transparent.
>>
>> best,
>> rupert
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>   
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Nathan]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:00 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> >In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
> >lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner.
>
> The removal resolution was approved on December 28, 2015, according to
> wikimediafoundation.org. Unlike most Board resolutions, it was publicly
> posted the same day. The posted Board resolution was accompanied by two
> separate e-mails to this public mailing list (one from James, one from
> Patricio) on the same day. What kind of transparency and timeliness are
> you looking for, exactly? What level of explanation would be satisfactory?
>
> >Why not let them make their own excuses?
>
> Excuses for what, exactly? The Chair of the Board announced the decision
> and other remaining Board members have chosen not to publicly discuss the
> issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
> in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
> to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
> cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
> numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
> a fuller explanation of the removal. It seems most prudent to wait for
> that. While this will sound trite, perhaps we could extend a little good
> faith to the members of the Board, most of whom are long-time trusted and
> respected Wikimedians and all of whom take their role seriously.
>
> MZMcBride
>

>

If you aren't sure what I or others are still looking for from the Board,
please refer to the various other posts to this and other threads. I
suspect you've read them already, so I'm not sure why you think it helpful
to pretend like you don't understand.

Asking for the board to be forthcoming isn't an attack or an unreasonable
expectation. No one on the board should be surprised to discover the
subscribers to this list and others have high expectations for
communication and transparency. If they had time to fully consider their
decision to remove James, then they had time to plan for how to communicate
that decision. If they are scrambling behind the scenes to do that now,
then it suggests the decision to remove him was either rash or an
emergency. In either case, that is something many of us would like to know.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[rupert THURNER]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
> in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
> to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
> cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
> numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide

like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
transparent.

best,
rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Nathan]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Newyorkbrad  wrote:

> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> page, I have copied his comment below:
>
> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> aware of it..
>
> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> should be circulated promptly.
>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM


Thanks Brad.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board (Olatunde Isaac)

[olatunde isaac]

I find the remover of James very disappointing. He was elected by the community 
and his remover should follow a due process and be transparent to the community 
who elected him. 

Olatunde Isaac

(User:Wikicology)
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Tue, 29 
Dec 2015 17:40:01 
To: <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 97

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

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

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

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


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (rupert THURNER)
   2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Steinsplitter Wiki)
   3. Re: Call for Board nominees (Pine W)
   4. Re: Quality issues (Jane Darnell)
   5. Re: Quality issues (Jane Darnell)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
From: rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:

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

[Kevin Gorman]

As an add-on note to Jimmy's comment, although it again comes with the
specification that I'm not a lawyer, and the only nonprofit governance
experience I have is in California rather than Florida: there's a solid
possibility that board meetings aren't held with the same sort of
non-disclosure agreement that governs many employee relationships, but
rather simply with the understanding that the contents of meetings won't be
disclosed before members of the board have generally agreed to, because all
members of the board are required to act in the best interests of the
corporation, and that's not in the best interests of the corporation under
most circumstances to announce what has happened in a board meeting before
it actually happened.  I presume James was aware of that - when I was a
member of a board with $10m a year in revenue, our counsel made it quite
clear to us that we had a duty generally speaking to disclose information,
even informatin that most of the rest of the board did not think it was in
the corporation's best interests to disclose, if we believed on a personal
level that it as in the best interests of the future of the corporation to
disclose the information (as long it didn't involve breaking contracts in
ways such as the disclosure of why disciplinary action had been taken
against an employee, etc.)

In some ways issues involving board members are signfificantly different
than issues involving employees.  Employee contracts almost always involve
clauses about the privacy of their personnel files etc, whereas this is
relatively rare for board members - the standard for departing board
members is normally something close to "Did they violate their fidicuiary
duties in a way that actually damaged the corporation? If so, disclose.
Are they leaving without cause/accusation of wrongdoing?  If so, disclose
if the departing board member desires disclosure. Are they leaving to go
frolic in a field full of ponies at their private ranch that collects cute
animals, but speculation about why they are leaving is lkely to damage the
corporation?  If so, disclose as much information as is necessary to ensure
speculation over their departure doesn't harm the company, while trying as
hard as you can not t cause them public embarrassment."  In contrast, Asaf
Bartov's contract (I'm picking a 100% random employee just to be clear) is
likely to contain limitations written in to it about what his obligations
would be to WMF if he departed willingly or unwillngly, along with what
WMF's  obligations to him would be - and in practice those will be
limitations that go far beyond the WMF's board's obligations to another
former board member, by my understanding at least.

I have no inside knowledge of what happened to be instigate Dr James'
removal, to be clear.  However, I do know that he ran on a stronger, more
detailed platform than most board candidates tend to take - [1] - and I
suspect that once he was elected to the board, he advocated for that
platform, probably in a stronger way than the WMF board is used to
operating.  I know most Wikimedians I know well supported most or all of
Doc James' platform, often quite strongly.  I hope a statement is released
by the board within the next few days specifying what exact problem Doc
James' presence on the board that caused the unprecedented (for WMF) step
of voting to directly remove a board member (especially when he's one of
only three community members directly elected by the community.  We often
hear people talking in theoreticals about the board being disconnected from
the day-to-day Wikimedian.. I hope that the board's forthcoming statement
makes entirely clear that the reasons for Doc James removal - whatever they
may be - definitely have nothing to do with Doc James advocacy of the
platform he got elected on.

The removal of what is only 1 of 3 directly community elected board reps is
an issue that should be treated with the utmost seriousness, and I really
hope that it turns out the reason for his removal turns out to be one that
justifies such serious action.  It's even more important to clarify the
reasons why James' removal was necessary, because of the sheer number of
other sensitive positions he holds throughout the Wikimedia movement.  I
also find it further concerning that while one community-elected did vote
for the removal, another community elected trustee - Dariusz Jemielniak -
who I personally hold in great respect, has written an excellent
ethnography, and is a full professor of manageml reent at Poland's top
university - voted against the removal.  I suspect that Dariusz' background
means that if it was simply the case that Doc James behavior was somehow
fundamentally incompatible with being a board member, he would've
recognized it and voted to remove.  It makes me bluntly, really nervous, to
see a motion to remove a community trustee who I think is widely suppported
as both being quite competent and having the movement's best interests at

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

[Comet styles]

Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a
"false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full
truth..

On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
> filling in a few more details.
>
> Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
> emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
> awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
> this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after
> the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
> speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also
> for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
> explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this
> way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> with the fallout of that decision.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
>> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
>> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
>> page, I have copied his comment below:
>>
>> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
>> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
>> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
>> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
>> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
>> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
>> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
>> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
>> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
>> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
>> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
>> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
>> December 2015 (UTC)"
>>
>> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
>> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
>> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
>> aware of it..
>>
>> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
>> should be circulated promptly.
>>
>> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>>
>> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:
>> > The removal is not transparent at all.
>> >
>> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words
>> > different.
>> >
>> > Very disappointing.
>> >
>> >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
>> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
>> >> > least
>> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
>> >> > able
>> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
>> >> > without
>> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
>> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
>> simple
>> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to
>> provide
>> >>
>> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
>> >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
>> >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
>> >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
>> >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
>> >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
>> >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
>> >> 

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

[Craig Franklin]

Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
filling in a few more details.

Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after
the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also
for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this
way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
with the fallout of that decision.

Cheers,
Craig

On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> page, I have copied his comment below:
>
> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> aware of it..
>
> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> should be circulated promptly.
>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>
> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:
> > The removal is not transparent at all.
> >
> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.
> >
> > Very disappointing.
> >
> >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
> >> > least
> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
> >> > able
> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
> >> > without
> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
> simple
> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to
> provide
> >>
> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
> >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
> >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
> >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
> >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
> >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
> >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
> >> transparent.
> >>
> >> best,
> >> rupert
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >

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

[Pine W]

I am not so ready to throw stones (: Perhaps because I have had one-on-one
conversations with a number of people involved in this situation, and I
would like to believe that they are all good people.

Reports that are rushed can lead to mistaken conclusions. I'd rather get a
comprehensive report than a rushed one. I do expect an explanation, soon,
and I expect it will be provided with the kind of integrity and
professionalism that I would hope everyone involved in this situation has.

Pine

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Comet styles <cometsty...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a
> "false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
> connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full
> truth..
>
> On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> > Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
> > filling in a few more details.
> >
> > Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
> > emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
> > awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
> > this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after
> > the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
> > speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also
> > for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
> > explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this
> > way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to
> deal
> > with the fallout of that decision.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> >> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> >> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> >> page, I have copied his comment below:
> >>
> >> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> >> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> >> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> >> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> >> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> >> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> >> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> >> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> >> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> >> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> >> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> >> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> >> December 2015 (UTC)"
> >>
> >> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> >> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> >> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> >> aware of it..
> >>
> >> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> >> should be circulated promptly.
> >>
> >> Newyorkbrad/IBM
> >>
> >> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:
> >> > The removal is not transparent at all.
> >> >
> >> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words
> >> > different.
> >> >
> >> > Very disappointing.
> >> >
> >> >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
> >> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself,
> at
> >> >> > least
> >> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to
> be
> >> >> > able
> >> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> >> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a me

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

[Emmanuel Engelhart]

Dear Patricio, Dear Board members

On 29.12.2015 00:29, Patricio Lorente wrote:
> Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of the
> Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
> immediately.

This is not how a democratic system works. James' legitimacy and power
came from the community, only the community should be in position to
take it back. If he broke a rule, made a fault, this should be examined
by a third part. Anyway, this should never be the duty of board members
to judge each others.

Emmanuel

-- 
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Chris Keating]

On 29 Dec 2015 01:17, "Todd Allen"  wrote:
>
> Even if there are legal reasons that disclosure is not possible, a simple
> statement to that effect ("For legal reasons, we cannot provide additional
> information") should be at the very least forthcoming.
>
> If the removal was "not for cause", which apparently is allowed, that
> should be explicitly stated as well.

I think it's probably likely there will be a limit on how much we can know.

If James was removed because of some serious disagreement with the rest of
the Board on an important issue, then the issue itself might mean WMF has
duties of confidentiality. This would be true for instance in almost any
issue connected with WMF staff, for instance.

If (much less likely ) it related to James's  personal conduct then WMF
continues to have a duty of care towards him  (and also must avoid defaming
him).

And finally, all involved will doubtless be trying to resolve whatever the
underlying problem,which is probably very difficult for all concerned - and
trying to avoid further provocation or anguish by saying things in public.

Regards,

Chris




> On Dec 28, 2015 5:45 PM, "Steven Zhang"  wrote:
>
> > Quite surprised by this action, it does indeed seem unprecedented and I
> > would hope the board would release a statement as to why this decision
was
> > made. Unless there are legal reasons that mean the board cannot disclose
> > why, I would think that an explanation should be provided.
> >
> > Steve Crossin
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 29 Dec 2015, at 11:32 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> > >
> > > I really, really hope that, as fast as one can be written, a
resolution
> > > explaining more fully the circumstances of James' departure from the
> > board
> > > is written and passed.  If there are legal reasons that mean that his
> > > departure cannot be more fully explained, that itself needs to be
noted -
> > > and I hope they're particularly strong reasons.  Without looking up
the
> > > vote count in the last election: James has the trust of a huge
segment of
> > > the community, and also has a much stronger sense of direction in how
WMF
> > > should be steered than many of our trustees have in the past.  His
sudden
> > > removal (the power mechanism I've cobbled together to have my laptop
> > > functional today is hilarious) without further explanation looks way
too
> > > much like one of only three directly elected trustees spoke up too
openly
> > > in a way that wasn't welcomed about the directions he thought
Wikimedia
> > > should go - even though he literally published a platform before he
was
> > > elected.  The sudden removal of a very well respected community
elected
> > > trustee has at least the appearance of a board that may not want to be
> > > responsive to those who literally create it's only valuable asset.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > KG
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tito Dutta 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Add me as well.
> > >> Eager to know what happened.
> > >> ___
> > >> 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,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Isarra Yos]

On 29/12/15 07:37, MZMcBride wrote:

Right, that part isn't surprising. But discounting the unsurprising vote,
it was a nearly unanimous decision (8 to 1). I have a good deal of respect
for many of the current Board of Trustees members and I have no doubt that
all of them understand and appreciate the gravity of removing a colleague.
This wasn't a close vote and to me that says quite a bit.


It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. 
And for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we 
should also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, 
or in the board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not 
knowing just means there's no indication what to trust.


-I

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George Herbert]

We need an attorney, but...

It looks like Bylaws IV sect 7 *could* override 617.0808 (1) via 617.0808 (2) 
which says that a IRS 501 (c) organization's bylaws can provide procedures 
(presumably different than 617.0808 (1) ), but says that you may include 
617.0808 (1), and WMF does, explicitly.

So... On first impression, the Bylaws self-contradict by including 617.0808 (1) 
explicitly after having provided a non-617.0808 (1) compliant mechanism.

"Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the 
Trustees then in office...", without regard for 617.0808 (1) (a) 2. Which 
requires that directors elected by the members be removed by majority vote of 
the members.

So... On first impression, the Bylaws have a glitch and the Board action may 
therefore arguably be illegal and potentially void.  There may be applicable 
case law on standards for de-glitchifying contradictions like this, or it might 
be case specific and requiring litigation.

That is not to say there was no possible good reason or justification, the real 
crux of the matter.  On the matter of community concern over trust I am as 
ill-informed right now as everyone else not on the Board.

I am not an attorney.

I do think the Foundation legal staff need to review and some fix to this needs 
to be made to the Bylaws for the future, either overriding 617.0808 (1) (a) 2. 
explicitly or by making community vote explicitly the recall mechanism for 
trustees elected by the community.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
> they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
> elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
> law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
> by referendum in this case.
> 
> I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
> On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hoi,
>>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
>> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
>> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>> 
>>> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>> 
>>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>> 
>>>   - how can this take place
>>>   - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>>   future,
>>>   - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>>   board
>>> 
>>> The Florida statute(
>>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>> other
>>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>>> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
>>> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
>> next
>>> steps in the replacing our representative.
>>> 
>>> Gn.
>>> 
 On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
 
 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
 
 
> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
>>> And
> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
 should
> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
>> in
 the
> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
>> just
> means there's no indication what to trust.
 
 
 I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
>> in
 him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
 
 Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
 community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
>> way
 to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
>>> mandatory
 that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
 exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
 later.
 
 And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
 community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
 everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
 disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
>> the
 authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
 
 Th.
 ___
 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Marcin Cieslak]

On 2015-12-29, George Herbert  wrote:
> I do think the Foundation legal staff need to review and some fix to
> this needs to be made to the Bylaws for the future, either overriding
> 617.0808 (1) (a) 2. explicitly or by making community vote explicitly
> the recall mechanism for trustees elected by the community.

I think that bylaws are pretty coherent with the statute; what
might need an adjustment is the following wording from the resolution
appointing new members:

> Resolved, that the Board of Trustees ("Board") approves and authorize the 
> election of (...)
to fill the Community-selected seats on the Board for the coming term.

> Resolved, that (...) is/are appointed to the Board, for a term of two
> years beginning on X, and continuing until Y until approval and
> authorization of the selection process in Z to fill these positions,
> whichever comes first.

Section 1 is clearly appropriate for the elected board members.
Section 2 is only appropriate for the appointed board members.
Even the bylaws do not use the term "appointment" when referring
to the board member selected according to the article IV,
section 3, subsections (C) and (D). The appointment comes
into play when there is a vacancy ("appoint the candidate receiving the
next most votes").

Saper



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Thomas Goldammer]

2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :


> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. And
> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we should
> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in the
> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing just
> means there's no indication what to trust.


I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than in
him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)

Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no way
to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be mandatory
that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
later.

And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines the
authority of the community over those seats on the Board.

Th.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gnangarra]

there are bigger questions than why like;

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

 The Florida statute(
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other
organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
place given the action of the board why are they also determining the next
steps in the replacing our representative.

Gn.

On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:

> 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
>
>
> > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. And
> > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> should
> > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in
> the
> > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing just
> > means there's no indication what to trust.
>
>
> I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than in
> him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
>
> Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no way
> to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be mandatory
> that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> later.
>
> And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines the
> authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
>
> Th.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[MZMcBride]

Nathan wrote:
>In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
>lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner.

The removal resolution was approved on December 28, 2015, according to
wikimediafoundation.org. Unlike most Board resolutions, it was publicly
posted the same day. The posted Board resolution was accompanied by two
separate e-mails to this public mailing list (one from James, one from
Patricio) on the same day. What kind of transparency and timeliness are
you looking for, exactly? What level of explanation would be satisfactory?

>Why not let them make their own excuses?

Excuses for what, exactly? The Chair of the Board announced the decision
and other remaining Board members have chosen not to publicly discuss the
issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
a fuller explanation of the removal. It seems most prudent to wait for
that. While this will sound trite, perhaps we could extend a little good
faith to the members of the Board, most of whom are long-time trusted and
respected Wikimedians and all of whom take their role seriously.

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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Nathan]

I don't think all the legal speculation here is very helpful. I'm sure the
Board or someone else will sagely advise us that the board is
self-governing and self-perpetuating and no other legal authority is
necessary.

In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner. Why
not let them make their own excuses? If indeed there is some
confidentiality issue, let them argue that the Wikimedia community should
be satisfied with never knowing the salient details.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Todd Allen]

It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
by referendum in this case.

I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
wrote:

> Hoi,
>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > there are bigger questions than why like;
> >
> >- how can this take place
> >- how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
> >future,
> >- what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
> >board
> >
> >  The Florida statute(
> > https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
> > to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
> other
> > organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
> > director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
> > or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
> > place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
> next
> > steps in the replacing our representative.
> >
> > Gn.
> >
> > On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
> >
> > > 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> > >
> > >
> > > > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
> > And
> > > > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> > > should
> > > > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
> in
> > > the
> > > > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
> just
> > > > means there's no indication what to trust.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
> in
> > > him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> > >
> > > Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> > > community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
> way
> > > to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
> > mandatory
> > > that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> > > exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> > > later.
> > >
> > > And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> > > community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> > > everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> > > disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
> the
> > > authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> > >
> > > Th.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Chris Keating]

>
> BTW, it's more "community selected" than "community representative".
There's an important distinction there.
>

Quite - all WMF trustees have identical responsibilities, regardless of
which method of selection resulted in them being on the board.

For instance Alice and Phoebe both served on the Board under via different
routes, they didn't end up representing different people as a result.

> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 29 Dec 2015, at 13:19, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
> > they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
> > elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
> > law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would
presume
> > by referendum in this case.
> >
> > I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
> > On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community
chosen
> >> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It
is
> >> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more
complicated.
> >> Thanks,
> >>  GerardM
> >>
> >> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >>
> >>> there are bigger questions than why like;
> >>>
> >>>   - how can this take place
> >>>   - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in
the
> >>>   future,
> >>>   - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
> >>>   board
> >>>
> >>> The Florida statute(
> >>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
> >>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
> >> other
> >>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
> >>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter,
unit,
> >>> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the
first
> >>> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
> >> next
> >>> steps in the replacing our representative.
> >>>
> >>> Gn.
> >>>
> >>> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer 
wrote:
> >>>
>  2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> 
> 
> > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the
context.
> >>> And
> > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
>  should
> > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
> >> in
>  the
> > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
> >> just
> > means there's no indication what to trust.
> 
> 
>  I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members
than
> >> in
>  him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> 
>  Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
>  community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
> >> way
>  to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
> >>> mandatory
>  that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to
avoid
>  exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or
more)
>  later.
> 
>  And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
>  community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into
that,
>  everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
>  disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
> >> the
>  authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> 
>  Th.
>  ___
>  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,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
 it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:

> there are bigger questions than why like;
>
>- how can this take place
>- how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>future,
>- what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>board
>
>  The Florida statute(
> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other
> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the next
> steps in the replacing our representative.
>
> Gn.
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
>
> > 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> >
> >
> > > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
> And
> > > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> > should
> > > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in
> > the
> > > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing just
> > > means there's no indication what to trust.
> >
> >
> > I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than in
> > him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> >
> > Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> > community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no way
> > to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
> mandatory
> > that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> > exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> > later.
> >
> > And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> > community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> > everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> > disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines the
> > authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> >
> > Th.
> > ___
> > 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[George Herbert]

Bylaws IV Sect 3. (C) says that they're elected by the community then approved 
by the board subject to other requirements.

Starting (first sentence) with "Three Trustees will be selected from candidates 
approved through community voting." would seem to make them subject to 617.0808 
(1) (a) 2. (Removal by members vote) even if there's an additional step in 
approval joining the board.

I am not an attorney.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 5:27 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:
> 
> From what I understand, the community elections don't directly elect/appoint 
> WMF board members, but essentially provide a recommendation that the WMF 
> board then approves. Have a look at the text of:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_appointment_2015
>  
> 
> and the phrasing at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015#Process 
> 
> specifically, "The candidates with the highest percentage of support will be 
> recommended to the Board of Trustees for appointment."
> 
> So the "class" here would be the WMF board, not the community.
> 
> But, of course, IANAL.
> 
> BTW, it's more "community selected" than "community representative". There's 
> an important distinction there.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
>> On 29 Dec 2015, at 13:19, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> 
>> It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
>> they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
>> elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
>> law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
>> by referendum in this case.
>> 
>> I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
>> On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hoi,
>>>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
>>> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
>>> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>> 
 On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
 
 there are bigger questions than why like;
 
  - how can this take place
  - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
  future,
  - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
  board
 
 The Florida statute(
 https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
 to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>>> other
 organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
 director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
 or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
 place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
>>> next
 steps in the replacing our representative.
 
 Gn.
 
> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
> 
> 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> 
> 
>> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
 And
>> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> should
>> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
>>> in
> the
>> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
>>> just
>> means there's no indication what to trust.
> 
> 
> I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
>>> in
> him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> 
> Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
>>> way
> to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
 mandatory
> that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> later.
> 
> And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
>>> the
> authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> 
> Th.
> ___
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Michael Peel]

From what I understand, the community elections don't directly elect/appoint 
WMF board members, but essentially provide a recommendation that the WMF board 
then approves. Have a look at the text of:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_appointment_2015 

and the phrasing at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015#Process 

specifically, "The candidates with the highest percentage of support will be 
recommended to the Board of Trustees for appointment."

So the "class" here would be the WMF board, not the community.

But, of course, IANAL.

BTW, it's more "community selected" than "community representative". There's an 
important distinction there.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 29 Dec 2015, at 13:19, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
> they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
> elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
> law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
> by referendum in this case.
> 
> I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
> On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hoi,
>>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
>> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
>> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>> 
>> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
>> 
>>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>> 
>>>   - how can this take place
>>>   - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>>   future,
>>>   - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>>   board
>>> 
>>> The Florida statute(
>>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>> other
>>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>>> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
>>> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
>> next
>>> steps in the replacing our representative.
>>> 
>>> Gn.
>>> 
>>> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
>>> 
 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
 
 
> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
>>> And
> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
 should
> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
>> in
 the
> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
>> just
> means there's no indication what to trust.
 
 
 I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
>> in
 him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
 
 Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
 community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
>> way
 to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
>>> mandatory
 that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
 exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
 later.
 
 And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
 community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
 everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
 disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
>> the
 authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
 
 Th.
 ___
 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 

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

[Comet styles]

Wikimedia is still a democracy, even if the people running it aren't
..as someone pointed out above, he was selected by over 1800
"contributors" and i have personally seen him make 'minor' mistakes,
none justifying why he was removed.. This is quite unbecoming of an
organisation that prides itself on its community, only to remove one
of its community-elected board members without any justification
whatsoever..still waitingI doubt any of us will be fond of
having another elections until we find out why James was removed in
the first place..

-- 
Cometstyles

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[MZMcBride]

SarahSV wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>wrote:
>> With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled
>> several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the
>> most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history.
>>
>> Any explanation of the reasons should be commensurate, in my view, to
>>the points outlined above.
>​
>James was elected by 1,857 people ​​and removed by eight.​ I hope an
>explanation is forthcoming very soon.

---
; Approved: Patricio Lorente, Alice Wiegand, Frieda Brioschi, Jimmy Wales,
Stu West, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Guy Kawasaki, Denny Vrandečić,

; Oppose: Dariusz Jemielniak, James Heilman
---

This is a somewhat interesting breakdown. I'm also paying close attention
to what James posted on this mailing list. In my mind, he's the person
likely able to speak most freely about this removal and probably is more
familiar with it than most. For now, he seems to have chosen not to say
very much. Others involved in the removal likely can't (or maybe won't)
say much more, which of course just leaves everyone else to speculate.

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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Todd Allen]

Even if there are legal reasons that disclosure is not possible, a simple
statement to that effect ("For legal reasons, we cannot provide additional
information") should be at the very least forthcoming.

If the removal was "not for cause", which apparently is allowed, that
should be explicitly stated as well.
On Dec 28, 2015 5:45 PM, "Steven Zhang"  wrote:

> Quite surprised by this action, it does indeed seem unprecedented and I
> would hope the board would release a statement as to why this decision was
> made. Unless there are legal reasons that mean the board cannot disclose
> why, I would think that an explanation should be provided.
>
> Steve Crossin
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 29 Dec 2015, at 11:32 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> >
> > I really, really hope that, as fast as one can be written, a resolution
> > explaining more fully the circumstances of James' departure from the
> board
> > is written and passed.  If there are legal reasons that mean that his
> > departure cannot be more fully explained, that itself needs to be noted -
> > and I hope they're particularly strong reasons.  Without looking up the
> > vote count in the last election: James has the trust of a huge segment of
> > the community, and also has a much stronger sense of direction in how WMF
> > should be steered than many of our trustees have in the past.  His sudden
> > removal (the power mechanism I've cobbled together to have my laptop
> > functional today is hilarious) without further explanation looks way too
> > much like one of only three directly elected trustees spoke up too openly
> > in a way that wasn't welcomed about the directions he thought Wikimedia
> > should go - even though he literally published a platform before he was
> > elected.  The sudden removal of a very well respected community elected
> > trustee has at least the appearance of a board that may not want to be
> > responsive to those who literally create it's only valuable asset.
> >
> > Best,
> > KG
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tito Dutta 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Add me as well.
> >> Eager to know what happened.
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> 
___
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,