Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Trillium Corsage]

26.04.2016, 03:25, "John Mark Vandenberg" :

> My reading of that is Jimmy supported her "departure" with sadness.
> i.e. he avoids indicating how the departure occurred; neither dismissal nor
> resignation.
>
> No doubt that type of phrasing is in the HR handbook for situations like
> this, to avoid pain or legal disputes after the fact.
>
> Thank you Craig for nipping this one in the bud.

Craig gave the right link. Here's the exact exchange.

Gorillawarfare: I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's 
departure. It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would 
like to know if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be 
beneficial, or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.

Jimbo Wales: I supported it with sadness.  The whole thing is a sad train wreck.

Yeah, it's accurate no-one says the word "dismissal." That was my 
interpretation of it based on recollection, I wasn't trying to introduce a new 
concept to anything.

I don't understand why we're walking on eggshells really. Jimbo "supported her 
departure with sadness." It seems pretty clear he's not referring to getting 
misty-eyed over cake at Lila's farewell party. He did something. He's not 
quarreling with Gorillawarfare's take that "she did not up and resign on her 
own."

As just an observer from afar, I liked Lila and thought she was doing a good 
job. She hired a child-protection person for one thing. However I've heard 
about the employee poll that said she really was failing to get support from 
the ranks, and I'm in no position to second-guess that. And then a couple 
months ago, she's getting bashed right and left on this very list, with a 
person going so far as to say she should "choke on shame" and "just go away." 
With no objection from the list moderators.Jimbo is going bonkers on James 
Heilman regarding his characterization of "Knowledge Engine." And of course 
Lila was a proponent of that. All the same, her resignation came quickly and as 
a surprise to me.

If the board had no discussion on her future and did NOT ask for or otherwise 
overtly encourage her resignation, it would be easy enough for any one of them 
to say that. If they on the other hand actually did meet or tele-conference and 
vote on it, that's the meeting I wanted minutes for. And obviously (thank 
Risker!) this doesn't mean I want to gawk at gossipy details of trustees 
criticizing her, I just would like to know which trustees gave the thumbs down, 
which didn't, and which introduced the motion. Is this secret HR stuff that 
would embarrass Lila? It doesn't seem that way to me. There've been a dozen 
news stories on her leaving, and none have reported it was on wonderful terms 
all around. So what's the big deal?

Publish the minutes or say "there was no meeting, there are no minutes."

Trillium Corsage

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Nathan]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage  >
> wrote:
> >
> > Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> > "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."
>
>
> Wait -- seriously??
>

No, it's a false quote. I don't know if Trillium falsified the quote or if
he/she picked it up from a different source. Asked if he supported her
departure, he wrote "I supported it with sadness. The whole thing is a sad
train wreck."

 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On 26 Apr 2016 09:25, "Craig Franklin"  wrote:
>
> I imagine that this is the email that Trillium is referring to, for those
> who are just joining us:
>
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html
>
> Whether he means that he supported her "dismissal" or supported her
> "resignation" is left to the reader.

My reading of that is Jimmy supported her "departure" with sadness.
i.e. he avoids indicating how the departure occurred; neither dismissal nor
resignation.

No doubt that type of phrasing is in the HR handbook for situations like
this, to avoid pain or legal disputes after the fact.

Thank you Craig for nipping this one in the bud.

--
John
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Craig Franklin]

I imagine that this is the email that Trillium is referring to, for those
who are just joining us:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html

Whether he means that he supported her "dismissal" or supported her
"resignation" is left to the reader.

Cheers,
Craig



On 26 April 2016 at 10:49, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage  >
> wrote:
> >
> > Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> > "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."
>
>
> Wait -- seriously??
>
> I missed this piece until today. But if this is true, it is huge.
>
> Lila's departure was publicly communicated as a resignation -- not as a
> "decision [by the board] to dismiss."
>
> Jimmy Wales has been quite vocal about wanting to defer to the board on
> what should and should not be communicated.
>
> In this instance, did he seriously acknowledge a vote that was kept
> private?
>
> So...Jimmy Wales can share confidential information when it seems
> personally convenient to him, but can withhold it when it seems personally
> convenient to him -- is that the standard?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Anthony Cole]

The Signpost has just published the October 2015 email exchange between
James and Jimmy - the exchange that Jimmy wouldn't release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-24/Op-ed

Thank you Signpost.



Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> This is getting ridiculous.
>
> Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this
> selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked
> to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange
> (James) wants it published. As Fae and others have repeatedly pointed out,
> you may simply redact any confidential board information. Your explanations
> for not releasing the whole exchange are an insult to our intelligence and
> your refusal to do so is a display of contempt.
>
> James is a genuine leader and spokesperson, elected by the community.
>
> What are you?
>
> You happened to be there when your failed encyclopaedia, thanks to Larry's
> idea to use a wiki and thanks to the energy and determination of the
> community, exploded before your eyes into this amazing thing.
>
> Now, you pretend to be the genius behind Wikipedia. Now, you pose as the
> humanitarian who gave away the encyclopaedia because "it was the right
> thing to do" (when, in reality, you relinquished it because the community
> wouldn't allow you to monetise it). Now, you make a nice living off this
> charade.
>
> You can take that story with you and, I'm sure, for a while at least,
> you'll still be able to dine out on it. But you're in the way here. It's
> time to move on from the board and from your self-appointed role as
> "spokesperson for the community".
>
> We need honest, hard working people who genuinely represent us in a
> public-facing role, not a deceitful, self-aggrandising, opportunistic
> squatter.
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> > Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan
>> Bart
>> > to Jimmy  the rest is also history.
>>
>>
>> Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
>>
>> >
>> > But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
>> > board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
>> > relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
>> > board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right,
>> remember
>> > that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead
>> or
>> > when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
>> >
>> >
>> I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
>> are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
>> spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
>> direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
>> dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
>>
>> I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
>> making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one
>> we're
>> right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
>> own sanity :p
>>
>>
>> > This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does
>> hinder
>> > and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
>> > Thanks,
>> >GerardM
>> >
>> > On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > Hoi,
>> > > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine
>> comes
>> > > out,
>> > > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think
>> he
>> > is
>> > > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still
>> intend
>> > > on
>> > > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
>> > > convincing
>> > > > before most other people would agree with you.
>> > > >
>> > > > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
>> > than
>> > > > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
>> > > about
>> > > > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful
>> talk
>> > > but
>> > > > for me it failed.
>> > >
>> > > From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
>> > > damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
>> > > weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
>> > > duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
>> > > profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
>> > > Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
>> > > participant 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage 
wrote:
>
> Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."


Wait -- seriously??

I missed this piece until today. But if this is true, it is huge.

Lila's departure was publicly communicated as a resignation -- not as a
"decision [by the board] to dismiss."

Jimmy Wales has been quite vocal about wanting to defer to the board on
what should and should not be communicated.

In this instance, did he seriously acknowledge a vote that was kept private?

So...Jimmy Wales can share confidential information when it seems
personally convenient to him, but can withhold it when it seems personally
convenient to him -- is that the standard?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Anthony Cole]

This is getting ridiculous.

Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this
selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked
to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange
(James) wants it published. As Fae and others have repeatedly pointed out,
you may simply redact any confidential board information. Your explanations
for not releasing the whole exchange are an insult to our intelligence and
your refusal to do so is a display of contempt.

James is a genuine leader and spokesperson, elected by the community.

What are you?

You happened to be there when your failed encyclopaedia, thanks to Larry's
idea to use a wiki and thanks to the energy and determination of the
community, exploded before your eyes into this amazing thing.

Now, you pretend to be the genius behind Wikipedia. Now, you pose as the
humanitarian who gave away the encyclopaedia because "it was the right
thing to do" (when, in reality, you relinquished it because the community
wouldn't allow you to monetise it). Now, you make a nice living off this
charade.

You can take that story with you and, I'm sure, for a while at least,
you'll still be able to dine out on it. But you're in the way here. It's
time to move on from the board and from your self-appointed role as
"spokesperson for the community".

We need honest, hard working people who genuinely represent us in a
public-facing role, not a deceitful, self-aggrandising, opportunistic
squatter.


Anthony Cole


On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
> > to Jimmy  the rest is also history.
>
>
> Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
>
> >
> > But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
> > board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
> > relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
> > board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
> > that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
> > when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
> >
> >
> I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
> are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
> spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
> direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
> dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
>
> I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
> making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're
> right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
> own sanity :p
>
>
> > This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does
> hinder
> > and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes  > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> > > out,
> > > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think
> he
> > is
> > > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still
> intend
> > > on
> > > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> > > convincing
> > > > before most other people would agree with you.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
> > than
> > > > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> > > about
> > > > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful
> talk
> > > but
> > > > for me it failed.
> > >
> > > From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> > > damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> > > weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> > > duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> > > profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> > > Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> > > participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> > > other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
> > that
> > > > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our
> community.
> > He
> > > > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> > > noone
> > > > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Oliver Keyes]

On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
> to Jimmy  the rest is also history.


Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.

>
> But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
> board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
> relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
> board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
> that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
> when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
>
>
I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'

I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're
right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
own sanity :p


> This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder
> and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes  > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> > out,
> > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he
> is
> > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
> > on
> > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> > convincing
> > > before most other people would agree with you.
> > >
> > > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
> than
> > > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> > about
> > > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
> > but
> > > for me it failed.
> >
> > From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> > damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> > weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> > duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> > profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> > Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> > participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> > other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
> >
> > >
> > > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
> that
> > > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community.
> He
> > > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> > noone
> > > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the
> latest
> > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > make
> > > a meaningful contribution.
> >
> > Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
> > mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
> > founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
> > IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
> > founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
> > to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
> > decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe  > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
> > with
> > >> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
> > allegations
> > >> against James.[1]
> > >>
> > >> James replied twice:
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> > >> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
> > discussion.
> > >> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
> > >>
> > >> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> > >> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
> > quoted
> > >> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
> > March
> > >> 2016 (UTC)
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
> > >>
> > >> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so
> that
> > >> everyone can judge for themselves how it was 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
to Jimmy  the rest is also history.

But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.

This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder
and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> out,
> > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
> > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
> on
> > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> convincing
> > before most other people would agree with you.
> >
> > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than
> > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> about
> > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
> but
> > for me it failed.
>
> From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
>
> >
> > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that
> > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He
> > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> noone
> > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest
> > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> make
> > a meaningful contribution.
>
> Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
> mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
> founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
> IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
> founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
> to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
> decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
>
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> >> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
> with
> >> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
> allegations
> >> against James.[1]
> >>
> >> James replied twice:
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> >> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
> discussion.
> >> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
> >>
> >> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> >> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
> quoted
> >> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
> March
> >> 2016 (UTC)
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
> >>
> >> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
> >> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
> >> selective quoting?
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >>
> >> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> >> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> >> > his own steam?
> >> >
> >> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> >> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> >> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> >> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> >> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> >> >
> >> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> >> >
> >> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> >> > employees 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Nathan]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

>
>
> Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic.
> And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a
> dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior
> movement figures with zero substantive accountability is a recipe for
> madness.
>

This "republic" vs "democracy" business is a fallacy I wish people would
stop repeating as if it means something - it doesn't. No one anywhere on
earth hears "democracy" and thinks "ancient Athenian direct democracy" is
what is meant.


>
> On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of
> > transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to
> > people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When
> you
> > consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our
> > results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects
> and
> > there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our
> > movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and
> make a
> > high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
> >
>

What people have demanded is transparency. Failing transparency they turn
to democracy as the only way to rein in the non-transparent exercise of
control and influence. The principle of affording the participants of a
group or effort the power to select their leaders is one that transcends
government and is meaningful in most contexts, including Wikimedia.

While I have said for years that Wikimedia is not a governance experiment,
having an accountable leadership is not experimental. If you support
transparency, and can see that folks asking for it have been given the
silent treatment for months on end, then I fail to see why you argue
against using the one lever of control that remains to demand that the
desire for transparency be heard.
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Oliver Keyes]

Yes, Jimmy is effective in his board role - unfortunately, well, have you
seen the threads about his behaviour in that role? If you instead mean he
is only valuable as an icon or media figure because of it you'll need a
better argument than a statement as if the claim is fact.

Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic.
And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a
dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior
movement figures with zero substantive accountability is a recipe for
madness.

But thank you for making the good faith claim that anyone who disagrees
with you on this is just making a power play. What was it you were saying
about taking an approach that achieves turmoil, again? ;)

On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> Do you really think that democratic processes produce a best result? Do you
> really think that the Wikimedia Foundation or the United States deserve
> that label?
>
> Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of
> transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to
> people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When you
> consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our
> results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects and
> there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our
> movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and make a
> high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
>
> What our movement needs is more recognition for what works. More room for
> experimentation helps. More trust in the good intentions of the people that
> make things work helps.We need less Wikipedia think and more result think.
> It is a travesty for instance that the great work in Wikisource is not
> recognised as a generator of traffic. That is what they do in India and it
> is why I as a non elected member of a committee have a deviant idea: in my
> strong opinion we need both more wikisources as a tool to generate content
> and a platform to bring that content to a world audience. I am thrilled
> that Wikidata will improve the functionality of red links in Wikipedia even
> though it is only a subset of what is possible. There will be a small
> conference on sources and quality and that is something I applaud.
>
> I have found that consistently this noisy crowd clamoring for "democracy"
> is not really interested in results. It feels too much like a power
> game.that is being played.
>
> Finally; Jimmy is effective. Removing him from the board will disable his
> ability to function. Think about it in terms of what we aim to achieve and
> forget all the self serving rhetoric about democracy. Democracy is
> secondary.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 18 April 2016 at 20:28, James Heilman >
> wrote:
>
> > If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will
> not
> > decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he
> > stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
> >
> > What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and
> > accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board
> for
> > life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the
> > movement.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > >  Arguably the latest
> > > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > > make
> > > > a meaningful contribution.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > In particular?
> > >
> > > Gordo
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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,
> > 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Do you really think that democratic processes produce a best result? Do you
really think that the Wikimedia Foundation or the United States deserve
that label?

Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of
transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to
people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When you
consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our
results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects and
there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our
movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and make a
high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".

What our movement needs is more recognition for what works. More room for
experimentation helps. More trust in the good intentions of the people that
make things work helps.We need less Wikipedia think and more result think.
It is a travesty for instance that the great work in Wikisource is not
recognised as a generator of traffic. That is what they do in India and it
is why I as a non elected member of a committee have a deviant idea: in my
strong opinion we need both more wikisources as a tool to generate content
and a platform to bring that content to a world audience. I am thrilled
that Wikidata will improve the functionality of red links in Wikipedia even
though it is only a subset of what is possible. There will be a small
conference on sources and quality and that is something I applaud.

I have found that consistently this noisy crowd clamoring for "democracy"
is not really interested in results. It feels too much like a power
game.that is being played.

Finally; Jimmy is effective. Removing him from the board will disable his
ability to function. Think about it in terms of what we aim to achieve and
forget all the self serving rhetoric about democracy. Democracy is
secondary.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 18 April 2016 at 20:28, James Heilman  wrote:

> If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will not
> decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he
> stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
>
> What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and
> accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board for
> life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the
> movement.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly 
> wrote:
>
> > On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > >  Arguably the latest
> > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > make
> > > a meaningful contribution.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> >
> >
> > In particular?
> >
> > Gordo
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[James Heilman]

If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will not
decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he
stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.

What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and
accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board for
life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the
movement.

James

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly  wrote:

> On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >  Arguably the latest
> > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> make
> > a meaningful contribution.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
>
>
> In particular?
>
> Gordo
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gordon Joly]

On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>  Arguably the latest
> crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make
> a meaningful contribution.
> Thanks,
>GerardM


In particular?

Gordo


___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Oliver Keyes]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out,
> the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
> an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on
> sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of convincing
> before most other people would agree with you.
>
> The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than
> anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer about
> what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk but
> for me it failed.

From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.

>
> The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that
> you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He
> is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is noone
> who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest
> crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make
> a meaningful contribution.

Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.

> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
>> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
>> against James.[1]
>>
>> James replied twice:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
>> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion.
>> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
>>
>> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
>> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted
>> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March
>> 2016 (UTC)
>>
>> 
>>
>> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
>>
>> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
>> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
>> selective quoting?
>>
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>>
>> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
>> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
>> > his own steam?
>> >
>> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
>> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
>> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
>> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
>> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>> >
>> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>> >
>> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
>> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
>> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
>> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
>> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>> >
>> > Fae
>> >
>> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett 
>> wrote:
>> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett 
>> > wrote:
>> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales 
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>> > >>
>> > >> Diff, please.
>> > >
>> > > Answer came there none...
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out,
the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on
sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of convincing
before most other people would agree with you.

The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than
anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer about
what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk but
for me it failed.

The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that
you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He
is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is noone
who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest
crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make
a meaningful contribution.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
> against James.[1]
>
> James replied twice:
>
> 
>
> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion.
> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
>
> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted
> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March
> 2016 (UTC)
>
> 
>
> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
>
> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
> selective quoting?
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> > his own steam?
> >
> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> >
> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> >
> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> > >>
> > >> Diff, please.
> > >
> > > Answer came there none...
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andreas Kolbe]

On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
against James.[1]

James replied twice:



Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted
can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March
2016 (UTC)



Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.

So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
selective quoting?


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> his own steam?
>
> His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>
> If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>
> P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>
> Fae
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> >>
> >> Diff, please.
> >
> > Answer came there none...
>
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Derek V.Giroulle]

I second that Gerard

On 16-04-16 08:16, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you
have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a
benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes
over as personal.

What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is that Jimmy was
instrumental in moving things quietly and deliberately in a direction that
served, serves and will serve us well. Jimmy is not an employee, at that he
is more like an ambassador and it is a function he serves pretty well imho.
As far as I know our foundation, there is nobody who can fill his shoes and
as such your sniping is not contributing to what we aim to achieve.

My question to you is very simple. Who else and how else could we replace
Jimmy, Do not give me crap by stating that elected members of the board do
equally well. They do not.
Thanks,
   GerardM


On 11 April 2016 at 13:37, Fæ  wrote:


If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
his own steam?

His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.

If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.

P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?

Fae

On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett 

wrote:

On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales 

wrote:

But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.

Diff, please.

Answer came there none...

___
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, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Trillium Corsage]

Risker, your suggestion that by asking for board minutes I was really calling 
(and "pruriently" so!) for public release of Lila's performance appraisals is 
so bizarre and ridiculous that I don't know how to defend it except by advising 
anyone confused by you to actually read my prior email.

Similarly, your assertion that "Patricio's email and public posting stating 
that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it" equates to 
official board minutes, and no more is needed, leaves me a bit lost for words. 
What I asked for is a document like the dozens posted here 
(https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings), and as I've written here 
before those things are so sparse of detail to barely qualify as "minutes" but 
they *do* typically say who raised a motion, who seconded it, and the result. 
Which is all I asked for.

Now, what you also did is place the resignation ball firmly in Lila's court 
"Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it." This is at odds with 
the common perception that the board issued the call for her resignation, and 
she had little choice as a professional but to comply. Is that not what you 
thought? Or you thought the resignation came spontaneously from Lila? At least 
GorillaWarfare didn't see it that way. She said " It is clear that she did not 
up and resign on her own."

Anyhow, it's a simple request for transparency. The board should publish the 
minutes or let it be known otherwise which trustee initiated (and which 
seconded) (and which opposed if any) the call for the ED's resignation.

Trillium Corsage

16.04.2016, 02:23, "Risker" :

> I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting
> stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it. It
> doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the
> Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the
> identity of the mover is more process than substance.
>
> The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I
> certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be
> published. I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously
> believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would
> probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention
> the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency,
> it's prurience.
>
> Risker/Anne

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you
have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a
benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes
over as personal.

What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is that Jimmy was
instrumental in moving things quietly and deliberately in a direction that
served, serves and will serve us well. Jimmy is not an employee, at that he
is more like an ambassador and it is a function he serves pretty well imho.
As far as I know our foundation, there is nobody who can fill his shoes and
as such your sniping is not contributing to what we aim to achieve.

My question to you is very simple. Who else and how else could we replace
Jimmy, Do not give me crap by stating that elected members of the board do
equally well. They do not.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 11 April 2016 at 13:37, Fæ  wrote:

> If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> his own steam?
>
> His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>
> If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>
> P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>
> Fae
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> >>
> >> Diff, please.
> >
> > Answer came there none...
>
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Trillium Corsage]

Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the 
topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the 
board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director 
Lila Tretikov will be published.

I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but these 
minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.

Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I 
supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am interested a little 
further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only supported but *introduced* the 
motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay, but then whom?

Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to hear 
the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed his vote, 
so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for violating any 
confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.

Trillium Corsage 

16.03.2016, 12:17, "Andreas Kolbe" :
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>  On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>  >
>>  > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>>  > wrote:
>>  >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>  >> release an email?
>>  >
>>  > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>>  > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>  >
>>  > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
>>  > James and cc-ed to Pete.
>>  >
>>  > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>>  >
>>  > Sarah
>>  >
>>  > [1]
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
>>  > [2]
>>  >
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
>>
>>  Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
>>  priority. It has gone on too long.
>>  If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
>>  other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
>>  was redacted.
>
> As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
> The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
> here.[2]
>
> There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
> drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
> submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
> in this movement for long enough.

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

On 15 April 2016 at 17:42, Trillium Corsage  wrote:

> Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on
> the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the
> minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the
> executive director Lila Tretikov will be published.
>
> I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but
> these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.
>
> Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am
> interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only
> supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay,
> but then whom?
>
> Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to
> hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed
> his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for
> violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
>
I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting
stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it.  It
doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the
Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the
identity of the mover is more process than substance.

The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I
certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be
published.  I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously
believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would
probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention
the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency,
it's prurience.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Fæ]

If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
his own steam?

His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.

If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.

P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?

Fae

On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>>
>>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>>
>> Diff, please.
>
> Answer came there none...

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andy Mabbett]

On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>
>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>
> Diff, please.

Answer came there none...

-- 
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Fæ]

After a chat with someone more familiar with Jimmy Wales' user talk
page than myself (I don't regularly follow it, as Jimmy does not grant
me free speech there), I think this may be the link,[1] but we agree
it's impossible to tell for sure as it all seems too obscure and
tangential; quote:"... I continue to make the case to the board that
greater transparency is desirable with regard to the reasons for
James' removal."

None of the discussion seems to be anything that reads as much more
than hearsay with plausibly deniability, and we are left hanging on a
promise of something eventually where all the other trustees, not
Jimmy, must be at fault for dragging their feet and failing to be
transparent about an email that Jimmy wrote to James, that nobody else
could have any legal or ethical reason to think they had a right to
veto publishing; considering it has already been suggested that
anything that might give the board of trustees a legal problem could
be redacted in a minimal fashion.

It's a shame that WMF trustees are not subject to the type of legal
constraints which most European charities operate under, forcing the
organization to release records given a subject access request within
a limited time... unless they sadly have an unexpected "administrative
error" and delete the important/embarrassing records they should have
archived.

It's not quite reached a month since publication was first requested
and agreed to by James to avoid any issue with respecting
confidentiality,[2] so readers of this list may have unrealistic
expectations that this will be clarified in a timely way.

1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=711235706=711235176
2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html

Fae

On 23 March 2016 at 23:32, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
> your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>>
>> > But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>>
>> Diff, please.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- 
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Lodewijk]

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?

Lodewijk

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>
> > But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>
> Diff, please.
>
> --
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andy Mabbett]

On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.

Diff, please.

-- 
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/22/16 6:18 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> Were you successful in getting clarity?

Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to publish
something that will then allow me to publish further.  But I did publish
something on my user talk page that is relevant.


___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Lodewijk]

It is good that you keep such track of the commitment. It would be nice if
that were done in a more constructive fashion.

You will often find me on your side when asking for more transparency. I do
think that doing this in a more constructive way will be much more
effective in the long run.

Lodewijk

Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ  het volgende
geschreven:

> Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales'
> behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.
>
> Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as:
> "Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has
> consciously
> or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
> justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
> into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
> sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
> 
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough."
>
> Jimmy made a commitment to publish by Monday and effectively halted
> this discussion while we waited for Monday to come, and pass.
>
> It's nice to wrap things up with complements and pleasantries, however
> when this is tried the questions still end up being forgotten, taken
> on tangents or given strangely obfuscatory replies that never take the
> issue head on and cherry pick at parts of the question. None of this
> gives confidence in the self-governance or transparency commitments
> from our "appointed" WMF board of trustees.
>
> Fae
>
>
> On 22 March 2016 at 18:18, Lodewijk  > wrote:
> > Let me rephrase that for you:
> >
> > Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> > Were you successful in getting clarity?
> >
> > If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and
> > argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more
> > tempted to interact.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ > het
> volgende
> > geschreven:
> >
> >> It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
> >> something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
> >>
> >> Can anyone share a link to it?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >>
> >> On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales  
> >> > wrote:
> >> > I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
> >> > promising any sooner.
> >> >
> >> > On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <
> jay...@gmail.com 
> >> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> 
> >>  Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> >>  release an email?
> >> 
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others
> about
> >> >>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James.
> [1]
> >>
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com  
> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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,
> 
> ?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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Fæ]

Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales'
behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.

Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as:
"Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.

If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
gone on long enough."

Jimmy made a commitment to publish by Monday and effectively halted
this discussion while we waited for Monday to come, and pass.

It's nice to wrap things up with complements and pleasantries, however
when this is tried the questions still end up being forgotten, taken
on tangents or given strangely obfuscatory replies that never take the
issue head on and cherry pick at parts of the question. None of this
gives confidence in the self-governance or transparency commitments
from our "appointed" WMF board of trustees.

Fae


On 22 March 2016 at 18:18, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Let me rephrase that for you:
>
> Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> Were you successful in getting clarity?
>
> If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and
> argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more
> tempted to interact.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ  het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
>> something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
>>
>> Can anyone share a link to it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>>
>> On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales > > wrote:
>> > I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
>> > promising any sooner.
>> >
>> > On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV > > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg > >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> 
>>  Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>  release an email?
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>> >>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com 
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Lodewijk]

Let me rephrase that for you:

Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
Were you successful in getting clarity?

If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and
argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more
tempted to interact.

Lodewijk

Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ  het volgende
geschreven:

> It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
> something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
>
> Can anyone share a link to it?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales  > wrote:
> > I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
> > promising any sooner.
> >
> > On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> 
>  Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>  release an email?
> 
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> >>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>
> --
> 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,
> 
> ?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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Fæ]

It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.

Can anyone share a link to it?

Thanks,
Fae

On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
> promising any sooner.
>
> On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
 release an email?

>>>
>>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]

-- 
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Fæ]

On 16 March 2016 at 12:17, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
...
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough.
...

There is no excuse for a $100m/year Foundation to endorse a trustee
who behaves so badly in public, and even worse in private. Nonsense
puffery about "free speech", does not suddenly make it acceptable for
Jimmy to gratuitously drop the f-bomb when brutally slagging off a
past board member in writing. This, hand-in-hand with political
distortions and what now appears a long history of blatant "untruths",
makes Jimmy Wales completely inappropriate to remain a WMF trustee for
the next 3 months, let alone the next 3 years.

Jimmy has a great career as a pundit, and many similar media
celebrities seem to be able to grow their profile and fees by behaving
badly and trashing people they have chosen to dislike. Good luck to
him, but let's stop promoting the myth that he in any way officially
speaks for the Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia volunteers or (in his
self-appointed role) Wikimedia employees.

P.S. Does anyone who reads this list know /exactly/ when and where
will we see the results of Jimmy Wales' interviews/workshops with WMF
employees, after his recent trip to S.F. acting as the default organ
of the WMF board of trustees; or should this now be forgotten like it
never happened?

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Jimmy Wales]

I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
promising any sooner.

On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>> release an email?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>
>> There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
>> James and cc-ed to Pete.
>>
>> James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
>> [2]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
> 
> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> priority.  It has gone on too long.
> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> was redacted.
> 


___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
May I ask on what basis this should be done. Is it not equally relevant to
ask yourself how isolated you are in your position? Is this what we need,
will it do us any good or is it just that you feel that this is what "we"
need ?

It is fine for you to spout what you do. However, I am very much disgusted
with this constant sniping. It is not about what we do and it makes things
worse. I can totally echo you when I say that it has gone long enough.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 16 March 2016 at 13:17, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  >
> > > wrote:
> > >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> > >> release an email?
> > >
> > > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> > > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
> > >
> > > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> > > James and cc-ed to Pete.
> > >
> > > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
> > >
> > > Sarah
> > >
> > > [1]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
> >
> > Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> > priority.  It has gone on too long.
> > If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> > other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> > was redacted.
>
>
>
>
> As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
> The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
> here.[2]
>
> There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
> drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
> submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
> in this movement for long enough.
>
> Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
> or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
> justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
> into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
> sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
> We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in
> early January,[3]
>
> Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
> reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
> published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
> best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."
>
> The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used
> above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good
> faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good
> Wikimedian" should assume the best.
>
> Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this
> information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full
> transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be
> published were the board and/or ED.
>
> To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative.
> Can we please put an end to it?
>
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough.
>
> Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving
> queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html
> [2]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=710334640#What_James_said_publicly
> [3]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=698861097
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_officer
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> > wrote:
> >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> >> release an email?
> >
> > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
> >
> > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> > James and cc-ed to Pete.
> >
> > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
>
> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> priority.  It has gone on too long.
> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> was redacted.




As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
here.[2]

There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
in this movement for long enough.

Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in
early January,[3]

Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."

The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used
above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good
faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good
Wikimedian" should assume the best.

Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this
information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full
transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be
published were the board and/or ED.

To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative.
Can we please put an end to it?

If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
gone on long enough.

Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving
queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]

Andreas

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=710334640#What_James_said_publicly
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=698861097
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_officer
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>> release an email?
>>
>
> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>
> There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> James and cc-ed to Pete.
>
> James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>
> Sarah
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html

Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
priority.  It has gone on too long.
If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
was redacted.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[SarahSV]

​​
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

>
> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> release an email?
>

​Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]

There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
James and cc-ed to Pete.

James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]

Sarah

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
>>
>> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
>> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
>
>
> Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
> there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and
> commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether
> or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and
> repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.
>
> You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words
> as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in
> an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of
> issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused
> recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that
> you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.
>
> Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are
> apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.

Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
release an email?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

> One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
> "Kremlinology".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology
>
> The cycle looks like this:
> - the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
> interpret indirect clues
> - this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and
> sometimes led by people with their own private agenda
> - board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't
> done, or believing things they don't believe
> - leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions
> - leading to the board not sharing enough
>


I think the paranoia and hostility comes in good part from the number of
times you say stuff – often very emphatically – that turns out not to be
supported by the facts. (Examples: [1].) And when that happens, I don't see
you fessing up and saying "sorry"; instead, you try to smear, undermine and
intimidate those who point the contradictions out.

Along with that come empty promises – sops to Cerberus – like the one
quoted here:[2]

Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."

Nothing happened after you said that, as is so often the case. The grant
agreement was only published a month later, within hours of my calling John
Bracken at the Knight Foundation, on behalf of The Signpost, who confirmed
that the Knight Foundation welcomed transparency and had no objection
whatsoever to the grant agreement being published. Previously, we had been
told – by Lila – that publishing the grant agreement would "break donor
privacy required in maintaining sustainable donor relations".[3] (Bracken
told me that as soon as he advised the WMF of our communication, the WMF
released the grant agreement.)

Yet just a couple of hours before the release of that document, you still
told the community that it was a "total lie" that there had ever been a
search engine project, or that it was part of any grant.[4]

Your behaviour comes across as completely self-serving. The overall
impression is one of complete disdain and disrespect for the community.
It's as though the community is just a means to an end to you.

There's no basis for trust. And there won't be, until you own up to and
apologise for that stuff, instead of complaining that people are
"attacking" you.

Andreas

[1] Examples:

A.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report#cite_note-3


Quote: “To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
proposing that WMF should get into the general “searching” or to try to “be
google”. It’s an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It’s a total
lie.”

Compare that to the Knowledge Engine grant agreement at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf

B. http://archive.is/hFMNV#selection-10409.0-10413.73

Quote: "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately
condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes. Writegeist is spreading
lies about me, and should be permanently blocked."

Compare that to the Wikimania speech here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVR82uP_f6Q=39m0s

C. http://archive.is/M56Wm#selection-345.0-357.95

Quote: "I just wanted to comment here on the idea that Larry Sanger had the
idea for Wikipedia. This is not correct."

Compare that to http://archive.is/kDwzh#selection-95.104-95.331
three-and-a-half years earlier:

Quote: "After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use
Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and
me!) ..."

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed
– diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=698861097

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant

[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946



> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and
> good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving
> in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.
>
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:
>
> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"


Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and
commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether
or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and
repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.

You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words
as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in
an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of
issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused
recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that
you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.

Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are
apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/3/16 11:19 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> WMF in being transparent?

One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
"Kremlinology".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology

The cycle looks like this:
- the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
interpret indirect clues
- this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and
sometimes led by people with their own private agenda
- board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't
done, or believing things they don't believe
- leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions
- leading to the board not sharing enough

I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and
good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving
in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.

Rather than point out negative examples, I do want to point out a
positive example, because I think that (see the sensitivity that the
hostility generates) some are likely to see what I'm about to say as
"Jimbo doesn't want people to be critical or to ask hard questions",
which would leave me with the emotion "what's the point of trying to
talk to them?"  Because that isn't what I'm saying at all.

Today I responded to a series of criticisms of the board by Mzmcbride.
His criticisms are largely wrong, I think.  But they weren't offered in
a spirit of conspiracy mongering, maliciousness, etc.  One central point
that he's making is one that I think actually stands, although he would
be more persuasive if he stuck to that rather than throwing in some
extras: it would be better if, at all times, the WMF and the Board had
solid succession planning in case of the loss of a key executive.

That's absolutely true.  That's is one of the things that led to this
whole situation - I have a lot more to say about that, but it'll have to
wait until I finish writing up a report for public consumption about the
time I spent in California talking to staff.

So this is a strong lesson learned and for me personally a top priority
going forward - making sure that the permanent ED search is conducted
professionally and with vigor, and making sure that as quickly as
possible we have strong hires in all the vacant C-level positions and
proper succession planning as a routine matter of organizational
governance and stability.

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Sam Klein]

Ariel Glenn writes:
> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently;
I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it
happen

Minutes review doesn't need to be prolonged; the longer you wait the less
participants remember.  Online board votes can be closed with a week of
discussion and four days to vote:
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Board_deliberations

If there is a dedicated scribe, rough minutes can be taken in a shared doc,
available during the meeting.  The fastest board I've been on spent 5
minutes at the end reviewing the draft minutes + any decisions made, and
shared the results right away.  This also helped reinforce any next steps
committed to.

If on the other hand draft minutes aren't available right away, you have to
whip people to look & respond (it helps for the whip to be a member of the
group, not the scribe, who might not want to press the point), and it's
easy for other events to intervene and lead to unexpected delays (since any
event can seem more urgent or important than this routine task).

SJ
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Oliver Keyes]

+1. There was an easy way to split the baby here; "the board has
confidence". Done. Simple. What the language actually used did, as
well as (now) betray trust and confidence, was induce the sense that
for all people said they were listening to staff, nobody was.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:24 PM, jytdog  wrote:
>
>> Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with.  You are saying that throwing
>> integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK.  I am saying it is
>> absolutely not OK.  The individuals representing the board should have been
>> honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and
>> if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous.  Misrepresenting
>> things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts
>> that remain gaping today.
>>
>> I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself
>> trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I
>> hear that.
>>
>> To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether.  It
>> calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just
>> destroys the very basis for authentic conversation.  It is a deeper wound.
>> This to me, bars the way to move forward.
>>
>> How do we trust what the board says going forward?  How can the board be
>> effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its
>> decisions?
>>
>
>
> Quite. I hope board members have been reflecting on
>
> 1. who on the board suggested and pushed for this "unanimous" wording,
> 2. who on the board felt uncomfortable with it, and
> 3. whether the latter group was browbeaten into accepting it – and, if so,
> what that says about group dynamics on the board.
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:24 PM, jytdog  wrote:

> Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with.  You are saying that throwing
> integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK.  I am saying it is
> absolutely not OK.  The individuals representing the board should have been
> honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and
> if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous.  Misrepresenting
> things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts
> that remain gaping today.
>
> I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself
> trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I
> hear that.
>
> To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether.  It
> calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just
> destroys the very basis for authentic conversation.  It is a deeper wound.
> This to me, bars the way to move forward.
>
> How do we trust what the board says going forward?  How can the board be
> effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its
> decisions?
>


Quite. I hope board members have been reflecting on

1. who on the board suggested and pushed for this "unanimous" wording,
2. who on the board felt uncomfortable with it, and
3. whether the latter group was browbeaten into accepting it – and, if so,
what that says about group dynamics on the board.
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[jytdog]

Thanks Risker.  Maybe there is a mixing of levels here.

I am urging that we address things have become broken on a deep level,
namely the gap between what the board says and what James has said and the
destruction of trust caused by that gap.

If all Pierre was doing was saying that he disagreed with the November
decision, that has really nothing to do with what I am trying to discuss.
My sense was that he was responding on the level I was discussing and
saying that the decision itself was trust-destroying.  Perhaps I was wrong.
  That could well be.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than
> is really there.
>
> Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself
> trust-destroying for [him]".  He said it was a mistake, and he said it was
> a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recover
> from a 90% staff disapproval level.
>
> He also pointed out that "[i]f the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the
> board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating
> doubts".  Thus he is not particularly concerned about the board saying the
> support was unanimous. Pierre's concern is that the board thought it was a
> good idea to keep an ED with a 90% staff disapproval rating.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 7 March 2016 at 18:24, jytdog  wrote:
>
> > Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with.  You are saying that
> throwing
> > integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK.  I am saying it
> is
> > absolutely not OK.  The individuals representing the board should have
> been
> > honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that,
> and
> > if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous.
> Misrepresenting
> > things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge
> rifts
> > that remain gaping today.
> >
> > I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself
> > trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I
> > hear that.
> >
> > To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether.  It
> > calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that
> just
> > destroys the very basis for authentic conversation.  It is a deeper
> wound.
> > This to me, bars the way to move forward.
> >
> > How do we trust what the board says going forward?  How can the board be
> > effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its
> > decisions?
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Seriously ?
> > >
> > > If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and
> undermine
> > > the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
> > >
> > > The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED"
> straw
> > > poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more
> it
> > > costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly
> > > there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff
> > > (C-levels included).
> > > Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog"  a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> > > > matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
> > > >
> > > > It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
> > > board
> > > > supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board
> > did
> > > > support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose
> to
> > > > state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
> > > everything
> > > > to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the
> board
> > > > actually did.
> > > >
> > > > This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely
> > allowed
> > > > this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes
> and
> > > > swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would
> be
> > > so
> > > > foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> > > > individuals made in the context that existed.
> > > >
> > > > These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -
> > have
> > > > created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.
> > This
> > > is
> > > > what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> > > > distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per
> se.
> > > >
> > > > Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures
> > and
> > > > to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make
> > bad
> > > > choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can
> > go
> > > > forward.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
> > > cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than
is really there.

Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself
trust-destroying for [him]".  He said it was a mistake, and he said it was
a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recover
from a 90% staff disapproval level.

He also pointed out that "[i]f the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the
board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating
doubts".  Thus he is not particularly concerned about the board saying the
support was unanimous. Pierre's concern is that the board thought it was a
good idea to keep an ED with a 90% staff disapproval rating.

Risker/Anne

On 7 March 2016 at 18:24, jytdog  wrote:

> Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with.  You are saying that throwing
> integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK.  I am saying it is
> absolutely not OK.  The individuals representing the board should have been
> honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and
> if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous.  Misrepresenting
> things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts
> that remain gaping today.
>
> I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself
> trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I
> hear that.
>
> To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether.  It
> calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just
> destroys the very basis for authentic conversation.  It is a deeper wound.
> This to me, bars the way to move forward.
>
> How do we trust what the board says going forward?  How can the board be
> effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its
> decisions?
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim 
> wrote:
>
> > Seriously ?
> >
> > If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine
> > the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
> >
> > The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw
> > poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it
> > costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly
> > there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff
> > (C-levels included).
> > Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog"  a écrit :
> >
> > > Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> > > matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
> > >
> > > It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
> > board
> > > supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board
> did
> > > support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
> > > state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
> > everything
> > > to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
> > > actually did.
> > >
> > > This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely
> allowed
> > > this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
> > > swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be
> > so
> > > foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> > > individuals made in the context that existed.
> > >
> > > These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -
> have
> > > created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.
> This
> > is
> > > what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> > > distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
> > >
> > > Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures
> and
> > > to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make
> bad
> > > choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can
> go
> > > forward.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
> > cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
> > > going
> > > > to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern
> Lila,
> > > and
> > > > especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
> > > towards a
> > > > particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be
> the
> > > > case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
> > > from
> > > > the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into
> the
> > > > public domain about how they regarded her performance.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > > On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether
> the
> > > > > "full confidence of the board" 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Jytdog,

My response was actually more to Oliver than you, but I still would draw a
distinction between "unanimous support" and "majority support".  It might
seem innocuous enough but as Pierre-Selim points out, "majority support" is
actually not a great reflection on an employee, as it presumably means that
some important people want to be rid of them.  Of course, without the
inconsistent messaging from the BoT drawing attention to this point, it
probably would not have become an issue.

I do concur with the general thrust of the rest of your message; that poor
recordkeeping and confusion in the way that the trustees have reacted to
this situation (and the Geshuri situation, and the Heilman situation, and
the search engine situation generally) has made things a lot worse than
they needed to be.

Cheers,
Craig



On 8 March 2016 at 04:16, jytdog  wrote:

> Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
>
> It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board
> supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did
> support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
> state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything
> to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
> actually did.
>
> This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed
> this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
> swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so
> foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> individuals made in the context that existed.
>
> These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -  have
> created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.  This is
> what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
>
> Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and
> to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad
> choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go
> forward.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
> going
> > to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila,
> and
> > especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
> towards a
> > particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
> > case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
> from
> > the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
> > public domain about how they regarded her performance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> >
> > > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> > > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> > > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> > > continuation was the best thing.
> > >
> > ___
> > 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pierre-Selim]

Seriously ?

If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine
the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.

The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw
poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it
costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly
there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff
(C-levels included).
Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog"  a écrit :

> Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
>
> It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board
> supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did
> support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
> state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything
> to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
> actually did.
>
> This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed
> this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
> swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so
> foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> individuals made in the context that existed.
>
> These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -  have
> created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.  This is
> what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
>
> Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and
> to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad
> choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go
> forward.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
> going
> > to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila,
> and
> > especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
> towards a
> > particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
> > case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
> from
> > the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
> > public domain about how they regarded her performance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> >
> > > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> > > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> > > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> > > continuation was the best thing.
> > >
> > ___
> > 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Nathan]

If the board is choosing not to participate for a particular reason, or
Jimmy is choosing not to release e-mails for a particular reason, then they
should say so. Nothing keeps them from offering that information
themselves. It isn't necessary for other people to speculate on whether the
deafening silence from the board is justified by a non-disparagement
agreement or some other concern about personnel confidentiality.

If that's the case, and it seems unlikely those responsibilities would
prevent the release of any information at all, they could simply offer "We
understand people would like us to comment about issues X, Y and Z but we
can't for reasons A, B and C." Regardless, the board can speak on its own
behalf or not and spectators guessing on the motivations behind their
choices add no new information and certainly can't excuse the gap into
outer space that used to be filled by a person named 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Stephen Philbrick]

I would also like to more about the decision to remove James — I am not yet
able to reconcile the public statements I’ve seen from James and Jimmy.
However, I am less concerned about the apparent disconnect between the
board statement of unanimous support and James claim that there was not
unanimous support.

I don’t think this is hard to understand. While I do not know the exact
sequence, it has been stated that a straw poll was taken in which some
board members express support for Lila and some did not. A straw poll is a
straw poll for a reason — it is often used to determine whether a subject
needs to be explored further. It is almost always the case that straw votes
are intended to be internal and not publicized. I’m not suggesting it is
improper to mention the results of a straw poll but it would be incorrect
to characterize it as a formal board conclusion. After the straw poll,
further discussion ensued and presumably some issues were identified and
some actions identified, none of which rose to the level that required
explicit mention in the minutes. Those board members who had expressed
concern about Lila presumably were satisfied that there concerns had been
heard, and were fine with the decision that she should continue. Thus, it
is not incorrect to say that there was unanimous support that Lila should
continue as ED.



I don’t think there’s much doubt that the expression of unanimous support
mask the fact that some board members had some reservations, but this type
of thing occurs at most board meetings. While there are issues that need
clarification I don’t think this is one of them.


Phil (Sphilbrick)
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[jytdog]

Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.

It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board
supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did
support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything
to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
actually did.

This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed
this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so
foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
individuals made in the context that existed.

These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -  have
created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.  This is
what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.

Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and
to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad
choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go
forward.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going
> to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and
> especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a
> particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
> case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible from
> the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
> public domain about how they regarded her performance.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> > continuation was the best thing.
> >
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

I agree with Craig on the most reasonable interpretation of the limited
commentary from the Board in recent weeks.  Indeed, it would be quite
normal, even expected, to include a mutual non-disparagement clause in any
separation agreement, which by its very nature is confidential.

Risker/Anne



On 7 March 2016 at 01:50, Craig Franklin  wrote:

> To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going
> to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and
> especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a
> particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
> case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible from
> the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
> public domain about how they regarded her performance.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> > continuation was the best thing.
> >
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Craig Franklin]

To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a
particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible from
the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
public domain about how they regarded her performance.

Cheers,
Craig

On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> continuation was the best thing.
>
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Oliver Keyes]

+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
"full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
continuation was the best thing.

I note that Patricio, despite being Chairman of the board, and a
trustee selected from within the movement, has not participated in
this list's discussion of the crisis, or the list at all, since
January. This is very disappointing.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:36 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:11 PM, jytdog  wrote:
>
>> How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the
>> contradictions?
>>
>
> Several people have asked Jimmy to release his 30 December 2015 email to
> James, in which he apparently explains in part why James was removed.
>
> Jimmy said on 28 February that he would know within a few days' whether it
> was okay to publish it. [1]  James has said that nothing needs to be kept
> secret for his sake. [2]
>
> It would be good to have an update regarding that email.
>
> Sarah
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:11 PM, jytdog  wrote:

> How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the
> contradictions?
>

​Several people have asked Jimmy to release his 30 December 2015 email to
James, in which he apparently explains in part why James was removed.

Jimmy said on 28 February that he would know within a few days' whether it
was okay to publish it. [1]  James has said that nothing needs to be kept
secret for his sake. [2]

It would be good to have an update regarding that email.

Sarah

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[jytdog]

Thanks for the kind replies.

The thing I really want to surface here, is the harder thing.

It seems to me that what has gone on around James Heilman's dismissal, has
some things to do with basic board processes being poor, and poorly
executed, for sure, but also.. and this is the hardest part of all - we
have the behavior of individuals, within that flawed context.  Flawed
behavior, that was possible in the context of poor processes poorly carried
out.  But flawed behavior.  I had a boss who liked to say "You can't
legislate morality."  when we were talking about strategic decisions and
policies. A lot comes down to the choices that individuals make about what
to do or say.

The really hard thing is that we have on the one hand the board stating
very clearly that it was unanimous back in November with regard to Lila,
and James writing, "it was not unanimous".  We have the board saying that
James' dismissal had nothing - nothing - to do with transparency, and James
saying that this was absolutely relevant to the conflicts that led to his
dismissal.

I don't know about others, but I find these contradictions to be almost
unbearable.  It is really obvious to me that if the past is going to be
laid to rest so that we can move forward with all these people still in the
community - so that we can move forward as a community - these
contradictions need to be resolved.  Which means that individuals have some
hard choices, as do we as a community.

How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the
contradictions?

We talk a lot about our values.  Is there room for forgiveness, so if it
turns out that people have made public misrepresentations, there is room
for them to come out and say "Yes that thing I said wasn't true, forgive
me?"  Or do we hold this kind of behavior unforgiveable and people who have
misrepresented things need to go?  Part of me hopes that there is some
truth in what everybody has said, a la Rashomon.   But with such frank
contradictions, it is hard to get there.

How do we work this out?  That is the question I would love us to tackle.

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Recordings of board meetings will be of value to future historians.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
> > the recordings publicly.
> >
> > We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a
> > massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please,
> > start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and
> > their (understandably fallible) memories.
> >
> > And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of
> those
> > video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until
> > after some more pressing things have been sorted out.
> >
> > I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective
> of
> > whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog  wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
> > > >
> > > > And I guess this one too
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
> > > >
> > > > I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> > > > videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what
> Risker
> > > > wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> > > > approved by all.
> > > >
> > > > At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings
> > that
> > > > are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like
> > the
> > > > above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
> > > >
> > > > What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
> > > differences
> > > > in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
> > > to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
> > > was meant rather than what was actually said.
> > >
> > > And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
> > > road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
> > >
> > > --
> > > John Vandenberg
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Anthony Cole]

Recordings of board meetings will be of value to future historians.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> +1
>
> Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
> the recordings publicly.
>
> We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a
> massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please,
> start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and
> their (understandably fallible) memories.
>
> And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of those
> video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until
> after some more pressing things have been sorted out.
>
> I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective of
> whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog  wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
> > >
> > > I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
> > >
> > > And I guess this one too
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
> > >
> > > I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> > > videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
> > > wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> > > approved by all.
> > >
> > > At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings
> that
> > > are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like
> the
> > > above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
> > >
> > > What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
> > differences
> > > in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
> > to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
> > was meant rather than what was actually said.
> >
> > And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
> > road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pete Forsyth]

+1

Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
the recordings publicly.

We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a
massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please,
start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and
their (understandably fallible) memories.

And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of those
video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until
after some more pressing things have been sorted out.

I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective of
whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog  wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
> >
> > I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
> >
> > And I guess this one too
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
> >
> > I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> > videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
> > wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> > approved by all.
> >
> > At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings that
> > are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the
> > above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
> >
> > What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
> differences
> > in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
>
> I agree.
>
> Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
> to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
> was meant rather than what was actually said.
>
> And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
> road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog  wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
>
> I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
>
> And I guess this one too
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
>
> I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
> wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> approved by all.
>
> At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings that
> are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the
> above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
>
> What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable differences
> in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.

I agree.

Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
was meant rather than what was actually said.

And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[jytdog]

Hi

This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.

I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html

And I guess this one too
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html

I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
approved by all.

At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings that
are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the
above happen?  So not open, but recorded?

What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable differences
in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Michael Peel]

They were doing this regularly until January:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_meetings/2016-01-30
and see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_meetings
I suspect this dropped a bit in priority since then, for obvious reasons, but 
hopefully only temporarily.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 5 Mar 2016, at 17:11, Lodewijk  wrote:
> 
> Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
> meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
> (the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
> indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to
> discuss...
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
>> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
>> by waving a wand and have it be so.
>> 
>> I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
>> different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
>> universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
>> did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
>> Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
>> being content-free.
>> 
>> And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
>> side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
>> shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
>> bodies ;-)
>> 
>> So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
>> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
>> after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
>> meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
>> those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
>> 
>> Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
>> before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
>> 
>> Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
>> and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
>> 
>> Ariel
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
>> board
>>> meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
>>> decided elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
>> wheeling
>>> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
>> Board
>>> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
>>> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
>>> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
>>> WMF in being transparent?
>>> 
>>> Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
>>> could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
>>> minutes are positively Wildean.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>> On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W  wrote:
>>> 
 Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
 a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
 
>>> ___
>>> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Lodewijk]

Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
(the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to
discuss...

Lodewijk

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
> by waving a wand and have it be so.
>
> I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
> different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
> universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
> did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
> Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
> being content-free.
>
> And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
> side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
> shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
> bodies ;-)
>
> So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
> after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
> meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
> those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
>
> Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
> before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
>
> Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
> and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
>
> Ariel
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
> board
> > meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
> > decided elsewhere.
> >
> > Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
> wheeling
> > a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
> Board
> > of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> > solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> > from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> > WMF in being transparent?
> >
> > Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
> > could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
> > minutes are positively Wildean.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
> > > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
> > >
> > ___
> > 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[James Salsman]

> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda
> published within 5 days after any meeting

"I would support as best practice the public posting of agendas for
routine board meetings. I would support that minutes be posted
promptly - but before the next meetings agenda is finalized is not
really practical because we normally vote to approve the previous
meetings minutes at the next meeting - every board I have been on does
this. I would not support that unagendized items be deferred until the
next meeting - we are working board and we have long board meetings
and such a delay would not be helpful in any way."
-- Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
by waving a wand and have it be so.

I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
being content-free.

And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
bodies ;-)

So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.

Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.

Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.

Ariel

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board
> meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
> decided elsewhere.
>
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> WMF in being transparent?
>
> Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
> could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
> minutes are positively Wildean.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
> > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
> >
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Craig Franklin]

This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board
meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
decided elsewhere.

Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
WMF in being transparent?

Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
minutes are positively Wildean.

Cheers,
Craig

On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W  wrote:

> Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
> a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
>
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Trillium Corsage]

The "minutes" released to the public are ridiculously scant. I tried to find 
out more last year about the board's removing the identification requirement 
from those the WMF grants access to the non-public information of contributors, 
but ran into dead-ends. The only thing I could decipher really is that 
boardmember Samuel Klein raised the motion to remove the requirement.

Trillium Corsage 
 

03.03.2016, 16:22, "Brion Vibber" :
> On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth"  wrote:
>>  Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't
>>  seen addressed:
>>
>>  Are there notes kept during executive sessions?
>
> Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept
> separate by the secretary and not published.
>
> -- Brion
>
>>  From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that
>>  doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing
>>  minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the
>>  participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories
>
> or
>>  resolve disputes, seems important.
>>
>>  For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording
>
> meetings,
>>  *independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more
>>  widely distributed.
>>
>>  -Pete
>>  [[User:Peteforsyth]]



___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-03-03 18:17, Nathan wrote:






So instead - why not ask the board to hold quarterly public meetings? 
The
WMF engages with the community through the model of public meetings all 
the
time, and participants have been happy with the opportunity to hear 
staff
work through issues and offer feedback. Can't we extend that template 
to
the board, and ask the board to create some opportunities to engage 
either

with the public or at least in public?


We can just ask them to hold office hours, as everybody in WMF does.

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Nathan]

What do we want? We want to understand what board members think about major
issues, we want some sense of the direction of the organization as driven
by the board, we want to be able to see and verify that issues important to
stakeholders throughout the movement are being considered and addressed by
the board. Videotaping or audio recording or broadcasting all board
meetings may impede the necessary work of the board, and lots of reasons
have been offered to support this objection.

So instead - why not ask the board to hold quarterly public meetings? The
WMF engages with the community through the model of public meetings all the
time, and participants have been happy with the opportunity to hear staff
work through issues and offer feedback. Can't we extend that template to
the board, and ask the board to create some opportunities to engage either
with the public or at least in public?
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

>
> I’d be eager to try this idea of observers/scribes from the community,
> with the slight amendment that I don’t think it *needs* to be a different
> person every time, though it should certainly be open to participation as
> much as possible. I’d also like for it to be open to folks from “the media”
> of our community, such as The Signpost.
>
> -
>

the reason why I think it would be good to rotate this person is that it
would allow to assure not getting into the Board's logic too much. If the
Board ever slides into group-think, this would be a safety valve.

dj
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andrew Lih]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative
> to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This
> would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a
> former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from
> wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized
> without the need to organize yet another elections.
>
> To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical
> presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but
> they would mostly be an observer.
>

I’d be eager to try this idea of observers/scribes from the community, with
the slight amendment that I don’t think it *needs* to be a different person
every time, though it should certainly be open to participation as much as
possible. I’d also like for it to be open to folks from “the media” of our
community, such as The Signpost.

-Andrew
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth"  wrote:
>
> Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't
> seen addressed:
>
> Are there notes kept during executive sessions?

Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept
separate by the secretary and not published.

-- Brion

>
> From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that
> doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing
> minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the
> participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories
or
> resolve disputes, seems important.
>
> For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording
meetings,
> *independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more
> widely distributed.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gregory Varnum]

Speaking from my non-Wikimedia experiences with nonprofit boards, I think 
Risker makes some good points.

Even a very good notetaker is going to make mistakes. There are things said 
they accidentally didn’t hear, they misunderstood what someone was saying, or 
simply summarized a point using wording that doesn’t sound quite right to the 
person who said it. Note taking is a different skill from dictating ever word, 
and when a non-messenger is summarizing for messengers, things tend to need 
edits before they are considered “final”. However, that said, I do agree that 
our Board should be striving to do this faster than has been done recently.

Regarding recording meetings, I have seen this tried before, and do not believe 
it is what we are really looking for. In reality, as Risker noted, it changes 
the behavior of participants - and usually not in an effective way. A lot more 
time is spent in meetings pondering the “right” way to say something before you 
say it. When it’s not being recorded, people are more inclined to offer early 
and incomplete thoughts. Perhaps it is good for people to pick their words more 
carefully first, but in my experience, usually makes the meetings less 
effective, and just results in a lot more “behind the scenes” dealmaking and 
conversations. I believe these types of meetings are most effective when they 
are a safe space to talk through complex problems. Additionally, I feel I 
should note there is a very real difference between Wikimedia Foundation and 
the governments we are sometimes compared to. WMF does not enjoy the same legal 
protections as governments do, and our movement’s or Foundation’s public 
meeting documentation are not free from threats of defamation/libel lawsuit 
threats (which Govt. meetings are free from). The end result for organizations 
I have seen try this is that a lot less gets said in meetings out of fear of 
being sued. The only way to really offset that would be to create a large legal 
fund to prepare, but even then, who wants to the Board member that has dipped 
into the legal fund half a dozen times in their terms? Also, is a legal fund 
defending potentially offensive things said during Board meetings the best use 
of our donors’ dollars?

I absolutely 100% agree that work needs to be done to help both the 
organization and our Board rebuild trust, and some of that needs to be either 
putting information out in better ways, and making sure info IS out there. I 
also understand and have seen this particular set of ideas come up as solutions 
for similar problems elsewhere. However, I do feel I should point out that like 
some ideas that sounded good and logical on paper, when it was tried out, the 
results were disappointing. It is entirely possible we’ll be the exception, but 
I’m not personally very confident in that. As such, I think we should ponder 
ways to make the notes posting process better, and ways that the Board can 
improve communication outside of their official meetings. Plus, let’s be 
honest, the meetings are not where everything is happening anyway. I want to 
know about the whole picture, not just that part of it.

-greg (User:Varnent)


> On Mar 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> 
> On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker"  wrote:
> Those who think it's an easy task that should be
>> able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real
>> experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
>> non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important
>> that they are correct before they're published.  Publicly presenting an
>> early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9
>> board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and
>> approve [sections of] the minutes.  The WMF Board is not and should not be
>> the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
> 
> What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead
> by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff
> member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather
> than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?
> 
> -- brion
> 
>> 
>> Risker/Anne
>> ___
>> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

*nod* very good points; it may be worth thinking about whether "minutes"
and "communicating a clear reference of what's going on" should be distinct
issues treated separately. If we've been conflating them in out discussion
that might be leading some of us down wrong paths in potential solutions.

Definitely agree on not making major changes too fast. Thoughtful,
deliberate changes only!

-- brion
On Mar 3, 2016 8:03 AM, "Risker"  wrote:

> On 3 March 2016 at 10:36, Brion Vibber  wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker"  wrote:
> > Those who think it's an easy task that should be
> > > able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no
> > real
> > > experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
> > > non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is
> > important
> > > that they are correct before they're published.  Publicly presenting an
> > > early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are
> 9
> > > board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct
> and
> > > approve [sections of] the minutes.  The WMF Board is not and should not
> > be
> > > the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
> >
> > What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead
> > by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff
> > member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it
> rather
> > than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> >
> Well, there's the fact that board minutes are actually legal documents;
> they are required by law, they need to contain certain information, and
> they are binding on the organization.  I do not believe you will find
> any major international non-profit organization (whether or not they've got
> strong community links, support open and free knowledge, or are just
> ordinary charities) that would publish drafts of their legal documents.
> Getting approved versions out more promptly, and in particular including
> more information and context for the decisions and discussion, is probably
> a  better first objective; this should be achievable because we can find
> good examples from other organizations.
>
> And, not to put too fine a point on it, but there are plenty of people who
> will point to the public draft and insist that's the "real" information and
> that any subsequent modifications were made for political reasons rather
> than to reflect correct information.  I think it's fair to say that, as of
> this precise moment, there's not a huge assumption of good faith directed
> at the board by at least some sectors of the broad community.  Whether or
> not it is deserved, I think it reasonable to say that the Board has some
> work in regaining the trust of the community. I'd encourage them to start
> with small steps that are easily repeated and documented and don't need a
> lot of exceptions, so that they will be building a more solid foundation.
> Making major changes that, after a few months, turn out to be
> unsustainable, will be more harmful than helpful.
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pete Forsyth]

Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't
seen addressed:

Are there notes kept during executive sessions?

From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that
doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing
minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the
participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories or
resolve disputes, seems important.

For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording meetings,
*independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more
widely distributed.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

On 3 March 2016 at 10:36, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker"  wrote:
> Those who think it's an easy task that should be
> > able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no
> real
> > experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
> > non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is
> important
> > that they are correct before they're published.  Publicly presenting an
> > early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9
> > board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and
> > approve [sections of] the minutes.  The WMF Board is not and should not
> be
> > the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
>
> What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead
> by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff
> member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather
> than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?
>
> -- brion
>
>
Well, there's the fact that board minutes are actually legal documents;
they are required by law, they need to contain certain information, and
they are binding on the organization.  I do not believe you will find
any major international non-profit organization (whether or not they've got
strong community links, support open and free knowledge, or are just
ordinary charities) that would publish drafts of their legal documents.
Getting approved versions out more promptly, and in particular including
more information and context for the decisions and discussion, is probably
a  better first objective; this should be achievable because we can find
good examples from other organizations.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but there are plenty of people who
will point to the public draft and insist that's the "real" information and
that any subsequent modifications were made for political reasons rather
than to reflect correct information.  I think it's fair to say that, as of
this precise moment, there's not a huge assumption of good faith directed
at the board by at least some sectors of the broad community.  Whether or
not it is deserved, I think it reasonable to say that the Board has some
work in regaining the trust of the community. I'd encourage them to start
with small steps that are easily repeated and documented and don't need a
lot of exceptions, so that they will be building a more solid foundation.
Making major changes that, after a few months, turn out to be
unsustainable, will be more harmful than helpful.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker"  wrote:
Those who think it's an easy task that should be
> able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real
> experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
> non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important
> that they are correct before they're published.  Publicly presenting an
> early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9
> board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and
> approve [sections of] the minutes.  The WMF Board is not and should not be
> the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.

What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead
by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff
member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather
than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)?

-- brion

>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

On Mar 3, 2016 6:16 AM, "Risker"  wrote:
>
> I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part
of
> the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the
minutes
> that relate to my presentation/participation/comments.   I've discovered
> that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed
or
> are misinterpreted or key facts  may be misreported or misrepresented.
Even
> the ones that are almost entirely correct usually need some editing. There
> have been times when I've rewritten the entire section for the
> minute-taker.  It may reflect on my ability to present the material, or
the
> level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else
> entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is
almost
> never completely right.  (That's why we call them drafts...)

This makes me think "release early, release often" -- quick publishing of
draft notes so they can be reviewed and questions asked for clarification.

And/or lean further on recording to ensure that incorrect or missing notes
can be corrected by double checking what was actually said.

>
> For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large
> part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be
> discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that
board
> communications needs to deal with.

This is a legitimate concern deserving more thought at all levels of our
movement.

> I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their
meeting
> minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
>
> Risker/Anne

-- brion
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Risker  wrote:

>
>>
> "Responsible for reviewing the minutes".  This is a lovely ideal. Can we
> now be realistic?  What do we really expect that "observer" to do?  Will
> they have input in to what the minutes finally say? Do they have approval
> authority (i.e., do they get to vote on the acceptance of the minutes)?
> I'm not opposed to community members observing board meetings - I suspect
> many people will find them to be unexpectedly boring, with less substantive
> discussion than many would expect - but the objective should be a lot more
> clear.  What about if they genuinely believe that the minutes (which most
> of us would recognize as having been written using a template) don't
> reflect or emphasize what the observer thinks were the key issues?  Do they
> get to put forward publicly their own version of what happened or what they
> observed?  Are they going to be permitted to observe the "executive
> session", where even the WMF staff are out of the room?  I am fine with the
> general concept, but I don't think either the board or the community has
> really thought through the entire process.  We should get it pretty much
> nailed down before it is implemented.
>
> Minute-taking is a skill - just as is writing a featured article or
> creating a featured image. Those who think it's an easy task that should be
> able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real
> experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
> non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important
> that they are correct before they're published.  Publicly presenting an
> early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9
> board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and
> approve [sections of] the minutes.  The WMF Board is not and should not be
> the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.
>
>

hi Anne,

I appreciate your criticism, it definitely helps to shoot down ideas early,
before they can mature ;) What I'm getting at is trying to find a sensible
form of addressing the community's concerns without making the whole Board
meetings public (I don't think it is impossible, I basically think that it
would entirely change the dynamics of the meetings - there would be an
incentive for the community-elected members to speak up to gain political
support, for example; this idea calls for just as much shredding apart as
the "observer" one).

The observer I have in mind would not be responsible for taking the minutes
(as you've pointed out, it is a skill), but reviewing them. Anyhow, it is
just an ad-hoc idea that I think could be refined, if it was perceived as
addressing the problem of the Board meetings being overly cryptic and
secretive for the general public.

dj
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

On 3 March 2016 at 09:22, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a
> large
> > part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be
> > discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that
> board
> > communications needs to deal with.
> >
> > I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their
> meeting
> > minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
> >
>
> Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative
> to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This
> would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a
> former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from
> wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized
> without the need to organize yet another elections.
>
> To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical
> presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but
> they would mostly be an observer.
>
>

"Responsible for reviewing the minutes".  This is a lovely ideal. Can we
now be realistic?  What do we really expect that "observer" to do?  Will
they have input in to what the minutes finally say? Do they have approval
authority (i.e., do they get to vote on the acceptance of the minutes)?
I'm not opposed to community members observing board meetings - I suspect
many people will find them to be unexpectedly boring, with less substantive
discussion than many would expect - but the objective should be a lot more
clear.  What about if they genuinely believe that the minutes (which most
of us would recognize as having been written using a template) don't
reflect or emphasize what the observer thinks were the key issues?  Do they
get to put forward publicly their own version of what happened or what they
observed?  Are they going to be permitted to observe the "executive
session", where even the WMF staff are out of the room?  I am fine with the
general concept, but I don't think either the board or the community has
really thought through the entire process.  We should get it pretty much
nailed down before it is implemented.

Minute-taking is a skill - just as is writing a featured article or
creating a featured image. Those who think it's an easy task that should be
able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real
experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important
that they are correct before they're published.  Publicly presenting an
early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9
board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and
approve [sections of] the minutes.  The WMF Board is not and should not be
the most important person in the lives of any of our board members.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Nathan]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Chris Sherlock 
wrote:

>
>
> Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris?
>
> Chris
>


Chris Keating is on the board of the WMUK.

In any case, it seems like there are many deliberative or legislative
bodies that see themselves as responsible to the public which manage to
videotape meetings. More than a few even broadcast them live on public
television. There is always the opportunity to go into a non-public session
for the discussion of confidential information. While this "speak to the
camera" concern (which is the same reason why U.S. Supreme Court oral
arguments are not videotaped) is valid... I think the fear is overblown. A
potential alternative is to have a transcript of the meetings created and
published, which might alleviate some anxiety for the camera shy.
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker  wrote:

>
>
> For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large
> part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be
> discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board
> communications needs to deal with.
>
> I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting
> minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
>

Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative
to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This
would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a
former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from
wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized
without the need to organize yet another elections.

To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical
presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but
they would mostly be an observer.

dj




-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

On 3 March 2016 at 07:53, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the
> meeting
> > > by the designated note taker(s)?
> >
> >
> > Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve
> > as minutes?
>
>
> I'd appreciate a closer perspective on what that means; what sort of
> changes actually happen between notes taken at the time and the eventual
> publishing? Practically speaking, what could change in how they're taken or
> reviewed to make sure that happens faster?
>
>
I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part of
the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the minutes
that relate to my presentation/participation/comments.   I've discovered
that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed or
are misinterpreted or key facts  may be misreported or misrepresented. Even
the ones that are almost entirely correct usually need some editing. There
have been times when I've rewritten the entire section for the
minute-taker.  It may reflect on my ability to present the material, or the
level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else
entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is almost
never completely right.  (That's why we call them drafts...)

For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large
part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be
discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board
communications needs to deal with.

I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting
minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> >
> > Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting
> > by the designated note taker(s)?
>
>
> Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve
> as minutes?


I'd appreciate a closer perspective on what that means; what sort of
changes actually happen between notes taken at the time and the eventual
publishing? Practically speaking, what could change in how they're taken or
reviewed to make sure that happens faster?

-- brion


> ___
> 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,
> 
> ?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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Sherlock]

On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:36 PM, Chris Keating  wrote:

>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
>> 
>> Nope.
> If you ever do, I think you will end up with a very different perspective
> on the commitment of time and emotional energy WMF board members make, and
> what it's reasonable to expect of them.
> 
> Chris

Not really. My mother was involved in a non-profit. She also looked after two 
children, worked full time and did a lot of housework (I fell kind of bad I 
didn't help enough, but I was young and my dad worked sone odd hours).

She managed to get the meeting minutes distributed in about a week. She treated 
it very seriously and yes, sometimes they were late by a week. 

Interestingly, I checked out GLAM's minutes. They are published very quickly 
and are quite detailed. The Discovery Team's minutes are very detailed and were 
published very rapidly.

The WMF's minutes were published on the Wiki on the 14th January, but it was 
held on the 7-8 November. And they don't mention the board action to remove 
James, so they don't appear to be complete. And some points don't appear to be 
particularly detailed.

Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris?

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Keating]

> A few reflections on this subject:
>

(snip)

I forgot one. Herewith:

4) Minutes while helpful aren't a substitute for proactive communication.
Having just written about this subject at length* I won't go into it again.
But when the WMF Board simply makes a controversial decision and putting
out a statement, it usually isn't communicating optimally. I'd usually put
communicating with stakeholders proactively, higher on the priority list
than ensuring prompt production of minutes.

(I am still scratching my head about how WMF Board might have acted on this
better after the November Board and staff meeting, given the many
challenges of that situation. But it does look like another case where a
statement was written that didn't end up communicating what the Board were
hoping it would communicate.)


*
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Why_do_They_always_do_It_wrong
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Sherlock 
wrote:
>
>
> That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy
> to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either
> reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They
> have responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted their
> position on the Board and they need to take them seriously.


I would ask that we tone down some of the personal vitriol... We've got
broken *processes* here, which are being followed.

In the common parlance: "don't hate the player, hate the game."

-- brion



>
> 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,
> 
> ?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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Keating]

>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
> >
> > Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
>
> Nope.
>
>
If you ever do, I think you will end up with a very different perspective
on the commitment of time and emotional energy WMF board members make, and
what it's reasonable to expect of them.

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Sherlock]

Sent from my iPhone
On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating  wrote:
> 
> Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?

Nope.

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Keating]

>
>
> That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy
> to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either
> reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They
> have responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted their
> position on the Board and they need to take them seriously.
>

Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Sherlock]

On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:56 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> 
> Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting
> by the designated note taker(s)?
> 
> -- brion

And why is the entire board writing up the minutes?

In fact, the job of a scribe is to be able to take down accurate notes during 
the meeting. Normally, they write up the meeting minutes and send them to 
everyone, which is part of the process in the Board's manual. If someone 
disputed the accuracy they say so and it gets resolved.

That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy to 
provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either reduce 
their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They have 
responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted their position on 
the Board and they need to take them seriously.

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andrew Gray]

On 3 March 2016 at 11:51, Chris Keating  wrote:
> A few reflections on this subject:
>
> 1) I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers /
> presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes.  These give a
> lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context that
> makes people concerned about what is actually going on. (I'd echo Eric's
> comment about the level of depth that WMF staff share in quarterly reviews
> and so on!)

I think this may have got written out of order :-) But, yes, I agree
that publishing board papers can be very useful.

> 2) Audio or video recording meetings is, in my view, a very bad idea.
> Wikimedia UK tried this for a while and then abandoned it. Board members
> start worrying about how their words are going to be perceived by people
> outside the meeting rather than the people in the meeting. In an
> environment where someone will start a critical email thread about every
> single misphrasing or ambiguity, I really worry this would cripple the
> Board's ability to have a conversation about any issue.

Also agree. Detailed minutes strike a good balance here.

> 3) 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame
> to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from
> people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on
> Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes
> from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query
> something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by
> which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to
> Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to
> look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning
> writing up minutes and then circulate a draft  which then someone wants
> to amend ... .you get the picture. :)

I think this is entirely reasonable for minutes made by and for an
entirely volunteer group. But WMF is a large organisation, employing
many staff. It coordinates and supports the board meetings, presumably
at some cost. Surely it could arrange to provide a confidential
note-taker whose *job* it is to take those minutes, put them into a
fit state the following day, and circulate them shortly afterwards? It
might still take a little while to get them approved and published,
but we'd still be a step up on where we are now.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Keating]

>
> Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting
> by the designated note taker(s)?


Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve
as minutes?
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating 
wrote:
>
> 3) 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame
> to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from
> people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on
> Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes
> from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query
> something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by
> which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to
> Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to
> look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning
> writing up minutes and then circulate a draft  which then someone wants
> to amend ... .you get the picture. :)


Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting
by the designated note taker(s)?

-- brion
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Keating]

A few reflections on this subject:

1) I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers /
presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes.  These give a
lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context that
makes people concerned about what is actually going on. (I'd echo Eric's
comment about the level of depth that WMF staff share in quarterly reviews
and so on!)

2) Audio or video recording meetings is, in my view, a very bad idea.
Wikimedia UK tried this for a while and then abandoned it. Board members
start worrying about how their words are going to be perceived by people
outside the meeting rather than the people in the meeting. In an
environment where someone will start a critical email thread about every
single misphrasing or ambiguity, I really worry this would cripple the
Board's ability to have a conversation about any issue.

3) 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame
to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from
people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on
Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes
from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query
something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by
which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to
Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to
look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning
writing up minutes and then circulate a draft  which then someone wants
to amend ... .you get the picture. :)

Regards,

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Chris Sherlock]

> On 3 Mar 2016, at 6:22 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 
> To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the
> existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that
> goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes
> publication, what types of information is captured in minutes, and so
> on. [2]

[snipping material]

> As for minutes, again, it seems to me a matter of first clarifying,
> possibly in the Board manual, what level of detail is appropriate. It
> seems to me that the Board is adhering to a relatively risk-averse,
> conservative approach right now, whereas WMF staff (which make many
> risky and potentially sensitive decisions on a day-to-day basis)
> capture significantly more individual-level detail in quarterly review
> minutes without apparent ill effect. I understand the concern about
> "speaking freely", but I personally think this is overstated in many
> cases.

I think the issue, aside from the extreme tardiness of the meeting minutes 
(really, the Board needs 3 weeks to publish the minutes and apparently has been 
late even then?!?) is that the level of details is ridiculous. The meeting 
minutes for the last Board meeting look like they were written on the back of 
an envelope, then typed into the wiki. And it’s missing that there was any 
discussion at all about the removal of one of the Board members, or that they 
asked James to leave the meeting immediately after the vote. 

I think the Board’s Secretary needs to step in to answer this question. Why is 
there missing actions in the minutes? Why aren’t the minutes complete? The 
Secretary is responsible for minutes, so let’s hear from him why the minutes 
aren’t up to date. 

Would someone please ask Geoff Brigham to come onto the list to explain this 
please? And also explain why it takes so long to prepare these minutes and have 
them signed off?

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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Brion Vibber]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
>
> To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the
> existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that
> goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes
> publication, what types of information is captured in minutes, and so
> on. [2]
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook


I'm going to quote the current state of the bit that has always worried me
about minutes:



   - The Secretary takes minutes of the meeting.
   - No more than three weeks after the meeting, the Secretary posts draft
   minutes and a draft resolution to approve the minutes on the Board wiki;
   Board members must amend or vote to approve the minutes within 10 days.
   - No more than five weeks after the meeting, the Secretary posts the
   approved public minutes and any presentations intended for publication, to
   wikimediaannounce-l
   .
   Public minutes and the resolutions approving them are available on the WMF
   wiki at meetings  and
   resolutions . The
   Secretary also certifies a hard copy of the minutes and any referenced
   documents, including any nonpublic portions of the minutes and retains them
   in Board books.



This three to five week delay is very out of step with the best practices
recommended in the rest of the organization.

Please push "send" at the end of the meeting and amend them later with
notes if clarification is required...

The board meetings already have a privacy switch, the executive session
(kick out any visitors and leave a big empty spot in the public notes), for
things that cannot be public.

-- brion
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-02 23:22 GMT-08:00 Erik Moeller :
> Jimmy made a couple of suggestions earlier [1], including to publish
> all presentations given to the Board and to have a trusted community
> observer.

"Nearly all", to paraphrase accurately, and on re-reading the email
I'm not sure I understand the "observer" idea ("a program of invited
board observers from people who are well known and well trusted by the
community"). Personally, I do find it intriguing but I'm not sure it
would add much value transparency-wise, unless these observers play
some kind of role in the discussion of what gets published, i.e. they
effectively act as advocates for transparency.

> When it comes to presentations, the manual primarily refers to
> exceptions such as Legal presentations and documents "intended for
> presentation".

That should read: "intended for publication".

Erik (and now I'm really over my quota)

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-02 22:56 GMT-08:00 Chris Sherlock :

> Let’s have the Board meetings be recorded. If they cannot be recorded,
> then I’d like the WMF to improve their meeting minutes.

Jimmy made a couple of suggestions earlier [1], including to publish
all presentations given to the Board and to have a trusted community
observer.

To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the
existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that
goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes
publication, what types of information is captured in minutes, and so
on. [2]

When it comes to presentations, the manual primarily refers to
exceptions such as Legal presentations and documents "intended for
presentation".

I would recommend clarifying the standards under which such decisions
are made, perhaps in the manual itself, and indeed publishing
presentations going forward. For instance, I think one can make
reasonable arguments either way when it comes to revenue related
presentations, but there should be a general approach.

Personally I would recommend transparency for those, as well, with
confidential business income and similar data being omitted if
necessary. "Competitive analysis" and the like is generally not the
kind of thing that WMF is good at doing secretly, and indeed many of
its risk analyses have been made public. Certainly all strategy
presentations should be public.

As for minutes, again, it seems to me a matter of first clarifying,
possibly in the Board manual, what level of detail is appropriate. It
seems to me that the Board is adhering to a relatively risk-averse,
conservative approach right now, whereas WMF staff (which make many
risky and potentially sensitive decisions on a day-to-day basis)
capture significantly more individual-level detail in quarterly review
minutes without apparent ill effect. I understand the concern about
"speaking freely", but I personally think this is overstated in many
cases.

The Board, being a governance body, _will_ often talk about sensitive
issues that cannot be captured in detail, such as personnel,
management and legal matters. But that doesn't mean it cannot adhere
to a greater level of detail in capturing strategy conversations, for
example.

Erik

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082719.html
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Richard Ames]

Seems a good guide:

https://www.governanceinstitute.com.au/media/428696/gov-inst_bestpracticeminutes_2014.pdf

R/R

___
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,