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
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.
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of
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. 
It isn't primarily about reasons for the removal, and in fact only
partly touches on that topic. It's primarily about why I
Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to
James, which explained the reasons for the removal. 
Apparently referring to James's removal, Jimbo has called for "full
publication of the details." 
Given that both parties have requested transparency, and that
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
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
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
To: Fæ <fae...@gmail.com>
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <email@example.com>
Subject: 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
For political convenience, the WMF board is spinning her seat on the
board as if she
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
Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed
to the seat vacated by James Heilman:
And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an
election. Unless the relevant
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
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
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,
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.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
While reinstating James Heilman (or rather, appointing him as replacement
of Arnnon - I am assuming this is your suggestion?) may be a decision that
is popular with a significant part of the community, I am uncertain how
productive such a move would be. Especially now there is no more ED, I
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
I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email
wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.
It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right
path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only
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
Mail list logo