[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi all, This is a brief note to follow up on our commitment to update the conflict of interest policy.[1] I apologize that we did not meet our initial deadline of 30 September, but the update is in progress. We are currently finalizing the draft updated policy and figuring out the best timing for

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Dear Amanda, Thank you for this quick and holistic response. I am sure that settles the matter and helps the movement to avoid future misunderstandings like these. The real victim here is Maria, of course. She has invested a tremendous amount of time, energy and knowledge into steering the WMF

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Thank you for sharing the link to the recording, unfortunately I could not follow it live. I am reassured by the open approach and speed taken to transparently address the issue and hope that the commitments promised will be followed through. With the high turnover at the WMF and many leadership

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Amanda, > It is obvious that despite our best intentions, the Board and Transition > Team did not have all the relevant facts and circumstances in mind when > this decision was made. I'm trying hard to understand how the Board and Transition team failed to realize the WMF expects standards

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 5:03 AM Chris Keating wrote: > My concern over this specific instance is prompted by several things: Thanks for laying out these concerns very clearly, Chris! I'll reiterate that, above all, my own biggest concern here is that governance standards of the movement should

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi folks, Leaving aside everything else for a minute, I want to reply to Maggie’s statement regarding the T case here. As someone with direct and specific knowledge of the issue, I feel responsibility to affirm Maggie’s version of events. Although we provided notice to the board that we were

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Dear Maggie (& everyone) Thank you for this email. I really feel that you should not have had to write this. I feel that the personal reference in an earlier mail (on this thread) to Maria and her partner was inappropriate and detracted from the discussion. But thank you for taking the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi, everybody. It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hoi, First, I am a candidate for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. I have taken time to see what people say, not react immediately. For María to become a consultant, I am of two minds. She is probably best placed to support the implementation of the strategy as defined. With both the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

"founding a user group or chapter (the latter is pretty unlikely nowadays), applying for a grant proposal and being hired by your colleagues as the first staff member of the user group you founded would be something totally legal, just lacking any ethical or moral compass." - I believe you are

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Adding to Chris' points, I would also like to illustrate the point where in the future, founding a user group or chapter (the latter is pretty unlikely nowadays), applying for a grant proposal and being hired by your colleagues as the first staff member of the user group you founded would be

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

> > I will note that, as Chris pointed out, even WMUK's current policies > would permit a transaction like the one we're discussing if approved > by the Board ("no trustee may _without the consent of the board_" > [8]), and Wikimedia Austria's Good Governance Kodex would permit it if > approved by

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Erik Moeller wrote: At least in my understanding, this thread conflates a good practice > (waiting periods) with violations of COI policies. As I understand it, > WMF adhered to its existing COI policy through the usual measures > (recusal & resignation from the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hello all, While this office hour will be attended by more than me, I want to be very clear what my intentions are, because I understand that some people may be concerned that I plan to show up to simply justify our decision. That’s not my goal at all. My intentions are to share perspectives,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

I strongly agree that whatever standards of governance the movement develops should be adhered to consistently. I think it's entirely understandable if folks are angry if WMF holds affiliates to a different standard than itself. A symmetrical waiting period for Board members seeking paid positions

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

There is nobody in existence whose advice is worth crossing serious bright lines in ethics of corporate governance and quite possibly legal ones. This isn't a parking ticket. Whether the offer and acceptance were made in good faith or bad faith leads to the same conclusion: a completely

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Maggie, How widely was this role advertised? Where? In 2019 Maria's partner invoked a process which, judging from the ensuing furore, was known only to Foundation insiders. That episode ripped the English Wikipedia community apart for months after, and still casts a long shadow. In 2021 Maria

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Adam, I understand that you would like to see María provide advice, but this is a volunteer organisation – everybody, WMF paid staff excepted, works, and contributes their expertise, for free. That includes board members. And I fail to see why a board member who – according to Form 990 data at

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 8:34 AM Fæ wrote: > > 1. It is peculiar that "established Wikimedians" appear to be > expected to out themselves just to take part in Tuesday's Zoom call, > which seems an unnecessary barrier. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2021-06-29

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Pleased to see an open meeting to discuss this being arranged by Maggie.[1] Sorry to see that both WMF Legal and the WMF board fail to provide practical governance advice on the consultancy and fail to address how this is inappropriate according to the board's published policies. It is a shame

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

+1 to Paulo's point, personally I would like to see us ease up on María and this seemingly temporary paid role. It's not a sinecure, not an arbitrary nepotistic position—rather, it looks like WMF would benefit. If the people in this thread truly have the good of the organization and the movement

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

I'm not sure reversing such a decision, with the consequent indemnisation that most probably WMF will have to pay to Maria Sefidari, is the best solution out of this conundrum. If the evil is already done, it should be solved in a way that best serves the Movement, and throwing such indemnization

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Amanda and Maggie, On the whole I am a great fan of this kind of office hour and believe it does a lot to improve communication between the WMF and community members. However this is not a problem of communication. The people speaking up in this thread are largely not the people who are

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hello, all. Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold an open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also available on Meta, here

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi, On 6/25/21 12:58 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: Some precedents: ~ As Florence noted, in 2007, Erik made a similar transition.  (A bit contentious; there was a long internal-l thread). And on Foundation-l

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

¹ OK, the existence of the Good Governance Kodex, and its Good Governance Gremium , may be the best thing I learned all day. Thank you, WMAT! Some precedents: ~ As Florence noted, in 2007, Erik made a similar transition. (A bit contentious;

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

"It also concerns me that the WMF were *not* aware of Community & affiliate norms in this field - what level of oversight of affiliate governance is occurring that there being significant affiliates with provisions like this not be known?" This is a question I would really like to be answered.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Amanda, [Apologies if accidental double-post] "Moving forward, we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices." That would be a reasonable statement if this were a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Dear Amanda, it is good to hear that you will take this advise and the discussion under consideration for future decisions of this kind. But what about the one we are talking about right now? Will the WMF review it´s decision to hire the former chair of its own board, or not? Besides all the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

"Moving forward" would involve directly addressing and fixing this shocking example of board malgovernance, not corporate-doublespeaking about the future in a way that avoids any and all culpability and transparency for this gross ethical lapse. This doesn't need to be "explained" to us; it needs

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

It's pretty embarrassing that regional Wikimedias have better governance standards than the (extraordinarily wealthy) international Foundation. I don't understand how the Tides/Wikimedia general counsel believes that the conflict of interest of Maria has moved directly from being Board chair to

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 12:56, Chris Keating wrote: > Thanks for the detailed comments. However, still, this doesn't really help > that much. > > From your email it seems that over several months the WMF has created a > new role which just happens to be ideal for its outgoing Chair to fill, and >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 11:26, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FOs9_l33gY=13s > That is an unhelpful and incredibly inappropriate response. Dan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

"Thank you to everyone that has provided valuable feedback. Moving forward, we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices. Developing a more clear and consistent policy

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 18:45, Adam Wight wrote: > I can imagine many potential conflicts of interest in this two-wiki > arrangement, most concerning is the possibility that the scope of Wikimedia > could be restricted in order to drive users towards the for-profit. > This is not a hypothetical.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hello again, Thank you to everyone that has provided valuable feedback. Moving forward, we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices. Developing a more clear and

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

I believe Jan-Bart post reflect my perspective on the topic. I second. Florence PS: I will point out though... for historical perspective, that a rather similar situation happened in the early years of the WMF, when Eric Moeller chose to resign from his position as board member to be hired

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi SJ! The 12 month waiting/cooldown period is something that was implemented in the Good Governance Kodex of Wikimedia Austria in 2014, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_%C3%96sterreich/Good_Governance_Kodex, with an independent committee consisting of a staff, board and community

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi everyone, I feel the asynchronous discussion prevents from a meaningful discussion to happen. Given the situation, I feel it would be appropriate for the board and the general counsel, who is the executive responsible for governance (and seems to be the person at the top of this reporting

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

> > > >> It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board >> members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant. >> > > A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or > policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

It's nice to read that chapters have been encouraged to tighten up their governance, avoiding conflicts of interest and so on. But before we pile onto this one issue, can we please step back and look at the Wikimedia Foundation itself? Technically, none of its Board members are elected. This is

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Jan-Bart: Spot on. It is always uplifting to see one of your measured notes come over the wire. Jan-Bart de Vreede writes: > The Foundation is supposed to be an example of good Governance for our > entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the past 20 > years (and that is

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hey So with all due respect and sympathy for the individuals involved and me being unwilling to hurt people I feel it would be worse for me just keep quiet. The Foundation is supposed to be an example of good Governance for our entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Amanda, Thanks for the detailed comments. However, still, this doesn't really help that much. >From your email it seems that over several months the WMF has created a new role which just happens to be ideal for its outgoing Chair to fill, and indeed could scarcely be filled by anyone else

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Maggie, You say, María "did not discuss this role with me while she was on the Board. She *quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her departure* ." It seems to me you are paying lip service here to the idea that it's inappropriate for a sitting board member to negotiate transitioning

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

There's a big leap between the "advisory" role that Maria mentioned in her notice of resignation and a full-on consultancy. In that email, dated one day after the June Board of Trustees meeting chaired by Maria, she told us that the WMF had already approached her to take on the "advisory" role;

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Maggie, Maria, while I'm sure everything is above board legally, and it follows all HR policies that the WMF has in place, it does have a weird whiff when I read this. While I think it's great for Maria to be able to put her experience to good use and while the WMF board probably benefits from

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hello, All, I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Maggie, Thanks for the clarification, but that doesn't really affect anything. Staff roles vs contractors/consultants are not that different. And the fact that you didn't discuss the post with Maria while she was on the Board doesn't mean it isn't a governance problem. First because decisions

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Maggie, Please be clear. How many hours a week, what remuneration, if any. Andreas On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Maggie Dennis wrote: > Hello, all. > > I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is > an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

I’m afraid that’s a distinction without a difference so far as conflict of interest is concerned. Surely the board can’t have approved such a thing? Michael > On 23 Jun 2021, at 23:01, Maggie Dennis wrote: > >  > Hello, all. > > I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is not Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Paid "independent consultant"? P. Maggie Dennis escreveu no dia quarta, 23/06/2021 à(s) 23:01: > Hello, all. > > I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is > an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she > was on the Board. She quite

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hello, all. I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her departure. Best regards, Maggie On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Greetings, This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have been happy to see the addition. "to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I have seen a director was disallowed

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Maggie I am astounded. Unless this is a non-remunerated role, taking on a board member immediately after they step down is an absolutely flagrant breach of one of the basic tenets of good corporate governance, the avoidance of conflict of interest. You and the WMF board must be very well

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Maggie, to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF, through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures (and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Maggie, I am flabbergasted. It is verging on inappropriate for the WMF to immediately hire a trustee the moment they step down from the Board. I could just about understand if the focus was solely on the executive transition. But this seems much wider. As a former affiliate Chair I would