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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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,

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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:

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

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Matt, here > , > Jimmy says this was a removal for cause. > > Anthony Cole > > >

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

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'l

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

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.

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

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.

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 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

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

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

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

-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

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

-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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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, >

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

] 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.c

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

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:

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

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

[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ___

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

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:

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

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

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

-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" <

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

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

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

@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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

ail.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

t; > -------------- > > 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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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 b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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] Announ

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

ve.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.

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

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,

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

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of >

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

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,

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

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

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

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

plitter-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.

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

ery 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, 2

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

>> 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

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

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'

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 >

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

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(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<    1   2   3   >