Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

On 2/27/16 7:50 PM, James Heilman wrote: > Jimmy to clarify some of facts. It was I who reached out to Patricio to put > together a joint statement. > > We worked on it in a Google document that I started and as such I am the > own. We were unable to come to an agreement. Ok. I wasn't involved

[Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Jimmy to clarify some of facts. It was I who reached out to Patricio to put together a joint statement. We worked on it in a Google document that I started and as such I am the own. We were unable to come to an agreement. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

On 2/27/16 5:28 PM, SarahSV wrote: > Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to > James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1] It isn't primarily about reasons for the removal, and in fact only partly touches on that topic. It's primarily about why I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1] Apparently referring to James's removal, Jimbo has called for "full publication of the details." [2] Given that both parties have requested transparency, and that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Hello, Thanks for the contributions. I can imagine that it is reasonable * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to work together with a specific board member; * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to publish the reasons for the removal; * that the WMF Board calls the removed board member to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Hi all - Maria's appointment should be viewed as a replacement to that of Arnnon Geshuri. I like her, and I think she'd stand a fair chance in a community election, but she is not and cannot be described as a community selected trustee at present. It's perfectly possible for boards to have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I plan to run in the next community (s)election. Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF back together again and I would

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman (Olatunde Isaac)

halonetwork.net> To: Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman Message-ID: <CAHF+k388fSOM4nG0rvgowa7mHEzpBwo=C9Lb26wsmQ3w=shC=g...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain;

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Yes, we are in agreement. Maria is an 'Appointed Trustee', not a 'Community Selected Trustee'. So the number of 'Appointed Trustees' went up by one, the number of 'Community Selected Trustees' went down by one. For political convenience, the WMF board is spinning her seat on the board as if she

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

It may be that at this point, reinstating James would not be a terribly feasible idea, even if it is a nice thought. And, well, it's a volunteer position. I wouldn't blame him at all if he's no longer even willing to serve in that role. I think, however, that the suggestions that have been put

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed to the seat vacated by James Heilman: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081540.html And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an election. Unless the relevant

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin wrote: > While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up, > the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other > politely in public for the best part of two months. I don't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up, the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other politely in public for the best part of two months. I don't think it's realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Reinstatement *now* would be an extra drama. The board must simply be ready to see him "selected" again by the community. Those events opened almost every door and every window of our ecosystem: focusing our attention on "names" is a waste of time now. Now it's time to focus on strategy,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

If the board can not back up Jimmy's assertion he has removed for cause, I am pretty confident the community will 'select' James again, just as soon as they are given an opportunity. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Well the keyword in "trustees" is the word "Trust" and as far as i can see James was the ONLY one that was forthcoming with what happened back in December, the others decided to keep their mouth shut and let it slide which obviously, made it worse and out of control.The community has over the

[Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Hi all - I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread. To an informed observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and to a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious. It would