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

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Gergő Tisza wrote: >> Hi Fae, >> >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Fæ wrote: >> >>> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar

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

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Gergő Tisza wrote: > Hi Fae, > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Fæ wrote: > >> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations >> that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including >>

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

Hi Fae, On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Fæ wrote: > Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations > that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including > several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite > of many

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

1. Restore James Heilman to the board (in Denny's now vacant seat) Yes. Although there should be a process for removing community trustees, there's 0 question that the process used to remove James was inappropriate. Even if this harms somewhat the functioning the board until the next

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

On 10 May 2016 at 15:35, The Cunctator wrote: > One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the fact > that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia content > without making their derivative work open. > > >- *Share Alike*—If you

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

One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the fact that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia content without making their derivative work open. - *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the

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

Hoi, Congratulations Gerard! You have remained in top position, dominating this list by making the most posts for the last six months.[1] Sigh.. thank goodness the community is in absolutely no doubt about your opinion, thank you so much for investing all your time in repeating yourself and

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

Hoi, And then there are all those people who wonder why you keep harping on the same subject.. Sigh.. Who is that community in your image? Thanks, GerardM On 10 May 2016 at 13:14, Fæ wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk wrote: > ... >

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

On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk wrote: ... > The elimination of the Founder seat, I'm also not so certain there is broad > agreement. There are doubts though, for sure. And there is also no broad > agreement to keep the seat as it is. It's simple enough to test

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

I don't support that statement from Todd , that is not how a board of a foundantion works .. please refer to the statutory (bylaws) provisions, that might be how todd ideally would like things to function but that is not much more then wishfull thinking . Derek On 10-05-16 01:46, Yann

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

Hi, I second everything said below. Yann 2016-05-08 5:20 GMT+02:00 Todd Allen : > Denny, > > I appreciate that you've put forth this account. That's in no way facetious > or just a pretext, I am actually very glad to see someone speak to this. > > I'd like, however, to

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

Nope, I don't have the feeling there is such broad agreement on those four points indeed. The only thing I heard broad agreement on, is that the removal of James was painful, and clumsily handled. Probably there is also broad agreement that with the facts on the table as they are, others would not

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

Hoi, Sorry Pete, there is not. Thanks, GerardM On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Keegan, thank you for clarifying; I understand better now. I agree about > the dynamics; I wouldn't say Jimmy Wales' role on the Board is unrelated, > though, as Denny's

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

In an effort to offer resolution to what Pete said below regarding Doc James’ removal, along with extending some form of compensation to Doc James and those of us in the community who elected him, I strongly believe his Board position should be immediately reinstated citing wrongful dismissal.

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

Keegan, thank you for clarifying; I understand better now. I agree about the dynamics; I wouldn't say Jimmy Wales' role on the Board is unrelated, though, as Denny's message was intended to shed light on a dynamic that has clearly involved Jimmy Wales in a central role. All: It seems (as is

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

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain > communication channels, not "our entire movement.") > > But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a > certain trustee

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

Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain communication channels, not "our entire movement.") But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a certain trustee should remain in their position. Also: If there are eight people who repeat something ad

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

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: > I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the > constant and blatant double standard. > > And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and > ends with 'Thanks' -- it's

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

I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the constant and blatant double standard. And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep repeating their position ad nauseam. On 8

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

My proposal was not to bring these sorts of issues to the "entire community" for a vote but for some form of community involvement. I was more thinking a group of functionaries who would be given confidential access to details and provide a bit of a check and balance to internal disagreements.

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

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > We already have one of those. > Cheers, > P ​Right, okay, whatever. Combing through WM-l archives for the past six months, there is a pattern: James is removed from the board - the same eight people write

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

> > Nevertheless, I still believe that any functioning body as our Board has to > have the right to expel a person, whom they feel like not being able to > work with. > > If a majority of my fellow Board members cannot stand me for whatever > reason (including the ones I'd find absurd), that's

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

We already have one of those. Cheers, P -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: Sunday, 08 May 2016 8:38 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James

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

As some of you may remember, I was the only trustee who voted against James' removal except himself. Nevertheless, I still believe that any functioning body as our Board has to have the right to expel a person, whom they feel like not being able to work with. If a majority of my fellow Board

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

I agree there needs to be a way to remove trustees, but IMO for community elected trustees there needs to be community involvement in the process. Also the ability to remove trustees "without cause" should be rescinded. J On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Chris Keating

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

> Second, the Board needs to resolve never to remove a community trustee > except by a successful recall referendum to the community. The Board should > never, under any circumstances, remove a community trustee without consent > of the community that elected them. Are you sure about this?

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

Denny, Like Todd and others, I appreciate your candid exposition of how things went. It's important to have clarity about what happened here, and your contributions are very helpful toward that end. Thank you. However, these words ring hollow: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Denny Vrandečić

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

Denny, I appreciate that you've put forth this account. That's in no way facetious or just a pretext, I am actually very glad to see someone speak to this. I'd like, however, to suggest what would actually begin the process of healing, since that's your intent. Most of us knew at least more or

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

I talked to James throughout his trusteeship, and I have no doubt that he for a second believed that his fidicuiary duty was towards anyone other than the WMF. Two very different confidentiality issues have been conflated w/r/t Jame's removal: the appropriate level of of confidentiality regarding

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

Denny I never stated that I "was informed at a later point that [my] duty as a trustee is towards the WMF". I have at all times understood that I have a duty to the WMF and believe I have at all times fulfilled this duty. A duty to the foundation; however, does not permit me to act unethically and

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

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: > Just a few points of clarification: > > * I have, to the best of my memory, passed on information only with the > understanding of my sources. If any of my sources disagrees with that, > please send me a message - I

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

Just a few points of clarification: * I have, to the best of my memory, passed on information only with the understanding of my sources. If any of my sources disagrees with that, please send me a message - I want to know and understand that I made a mistake there. * We are not talking about the

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

04.05.2016 22:00 "Katie Horn" napisał(a): > > Either way, I would be deeply encouraged to see progress in creating a more > robust and predictable connection between the board and WMF staff. Whether > that connection ends up being a board liaison or something else, I suspect

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

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > I used the phrase "run amok" based on comments at > . Specifically, > Brion Vibber writes: > > "Former VP of Engineering Damon Sicore, who as far as I know conceived the >

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

I like that, Pine. I would add, procedure to disclose and manage conflicts of interest that board members might have, in our context. That would bring in the matters around Denny's departure. Those four things. On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Pine W wrote: > I will make

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

I will make a suggestion that I have made previously: that there should be an external firm, probably a law firm experienced with nonprofit governance, brought in to examine and publicize the facts regarding the Foundation's Board governance and to make recommendations for changes to policies and

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

On 05/05/16 11:10, Tim Starling wrote: > In fact, employees disagreed with Lila's decision to pursue large > restricted grants for a stupid pet project, in secret, supported by > almost nobody, without Board knowledge let alone approval. This has > nothing to do with education versus technology

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

It seems to me, that the question of whether or not we should consider extending the scope of the whistleblower policy, can be reduced to a question of whether or not we believe that United States law at any given moment is an ideal representation of unacceptable conduct. Either way, I would be

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

On 04/05/16 12:02, MZMcBride wrote: > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy > > You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current > whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to > laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy

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

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote: > 2) The whistleblower policy was indeed insufficient because even very > serious ethical complaints raised did not rise to the level of strict > illegality. > without referring to issues in the past, I think that a

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

In my personal opinion and recollection, two of the points raised above are on-target: 1) Several staff, including myself, explicitly sought out Board members whom they did not view as a directly loyal conduit to Lila, precisely because they feared retribution from them/her. 2) The whistleblower

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

Hoi, I would assume that people who spoke in confidence were ASKED if they wanted to be included. It would be really bad to approach it in any other way. As to the knowledge engine. Can we please put it to rest. It has always been a big misunderstanding. It is not and has never been what the WMF

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

> I'd like to ask about *who* this "professional fact finding" process talked > to? I'm not asking to "name specific names" but more about which groups of > people. > I also wonder about this - I am sort of assuming that the people who were coming forward to raise grievances were included in the

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

There are several important issues that people have raised here already - notably the question of confidentiality of information; the question of the membership of this "task force"; and the question of whether the whistleblower process was effective/sufficient. However, I'd like to refer to this

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

Pardon my naivety, but is it possible that "whistleblowers" didn't want the whole Board to know their identity, because other Board members were very close to Lila? It's pretty clear to me that there was serious fear of retribution (not implying that retribution was likely, just saying that the

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

Tim Starling wrote: >Board members have a duty to act in the interests of the WMF as a >whole, but it does not follow that denying anonymity to whistleblowers >is in the best interests of the WMF. In fact, I think this Lila/KF/KE >case demonstrates the opposite. > >I would encourage the Board to

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

On 03/05/16 08:27, James Heilman wrote: > As for my willingness to share all communications with the entire board, I > believe I managed to communicate all relevant details without violating the > explicit confidence requested of me by staff members. (Note that in later > conversations I was

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

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Denny Vrandečić > wrote: > > > The formal task force was created end of October. This task force > involved > > outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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