Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do appreciate Denny. However, your notion that "we're lucky to have him"
flies in the face of him leaving the board. He now does no longer a COI
working at Google. Have you considered that he might have been more
worthwhile to us having remained on the board and having been more
outspoken even given this COI?
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 12 April 2016 at 11:07, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>
> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
> away.
>
> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:
>
> > This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
> we
> > changed
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
> > >"
> > message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
> > donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
> an
> > "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
> > Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
> page,
> > too)
> >
> > The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
> > surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
> > causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
> Debating
> > what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
> > all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
> areas
> > actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
> > wasn't made public.
> >
> > Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
> > interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
> > conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
> > the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
> > seems to be the key issue looking forward.
> >
> > I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
> > >
> > > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> > > knowledge with the world?"
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > > yearly
> > > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
> > should
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
> > >
> > > It depends on what we want them to do.
> > >
> > > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> > > Wikipedia's
> > > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]
> is
> > > problematic?"
> > >
> > > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
> > >
> > > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> > > less frequently,
> > > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
> > >
> > > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising
> capacity, I
> > > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
> expert
> > on
> > > these things.
> > >
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> > > we're
> > > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> > > >
> > > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate
> > and
> > > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
> > feature
> > > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
> > re-users'
> > > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
> > correct.
> > > >
> > > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> > > make
> > > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> > > applauding
> > > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> > > >
> > > > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > > > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The
> Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
> > management
> > > > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> > > >
> > > > What size do you think the Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Fæ]

When a board member has special 'enthusiasms', it can be normal for
the board to seek their view as an inside expert, however it can
easily turn out to be a mistake if a trustee vote includes their vote,
especially if the community wishes to see trustee voting becoming more
transparent.

This is because the same trustees with special passions and interests
for a resolution may be hard to stand against for fellow trustees who
have neither special interest nor knowledge for a resolution, beyond
what is presented to the board at that time. Just having a especially
interested trustee participate in the vote may sway the outcome far
more than their single numerical vote. It is fairly obvious that
trustees like Jimmy with interests in Wikia, ex-trustee Denny with
interests in Google or ex-trustee James with interests in the medical
field, have interests to be managed and should be a reason for them to
recuse from votes touching on those same interests, or where they may
be later *seen* to touch on those interests. This should not be a
reason for the board to fail to benefit from expert knowledge that
some trustees happen to have.

Of course there is *plenty* of outside expertize amongst the Wikimedia
community that could be provided to the board at minimal cost,
especially if video conferencing were used, rather than flying people
around the world to talk. I find it sad that we see few of these types
of board presentations being solicited from expert and enthusiastic
community members, with a default of using WMF employees or
consultants to give board presentations (based on what we see from the
ridiculously sketchy board meeting minutes). Getting varying views
from non-Trustee experts in snapshot/10 minute briefing presentations
would be an excellent way for Trustees in Denny's position to
recommend sources of expert information while avoiding being
compromised, and remaining comfortable that the issues and benefits
for improvements to the WMF strategy, and best use of funding, were
being properly explored.

Fae


On 12 April 2016 at 12:30, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> Hi Ting.
>
> You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."
>
> It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
> colleagues, the motion won't pass.
>
> In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
> who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
> those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
> expense of the overall shared mission.
>
> Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
> is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
> other trustees?
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>
>> Hello Anthony,
>>
>> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
>> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
>> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
>> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
>> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
>> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>>
>> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
>> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
>> power or say than other community members.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>>
>>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>>> initiative?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> jytdog, regarding:

 "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
 outside interests
 and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
 with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
 role."

 When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

 I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
 hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
 just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
 they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
 think,
 expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
 it
 a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

 Anthony Cole


 On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole 
 wrote:

 Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>
> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Ting Chen]

Hello Anthony,

in my opinion, the board should not discuss individual projects, at 
least when I was on the board we decided not to. The board looks at 
policies that are more general and global. The resolutions that the 
board issued, which do impact the projects, are (or at least were) 
always formulated in a way that it applies to all projects. And they 
always only state the principle, and let the individual projects room to 
implement the principles into their own policies.


That said. Naturally every single board member bring their own 
experience, and in discussions we did use our individual experiences to 
explain our position. But when we formulated a resolution or made a 
decision we always tried to avoid to set up a principle or a decision on 
one project.


There is no clear boundary for COI, as someone else had already said. 
Everyone of us has our own personal red lines. I am not someone who 
would comment other people's red line. Actually generally I tend to 
accept the fact that other people have a different red line.


I would like to give you an example to show you my red line: Back in 
2009 when we were working on the strategic planning I decided to not be 
member of the workshop that deal with China, instead of that I took part 
in the movement roles workshop. And I didn't take part on the discussion 
when it came to the decision if China should be a hot spot or now. The 
reason for that is exactly because as a board member I may be put a 
special emphasis on the topic China, and there is potentially a bias of 
my opinion which may lead the Foundation do a wrong decision (in that 
case it may mean waste a few tens of thousands of dollars). Naturally 
there were community members who were not happy with this. And there 
were some critics when the board decided in favor of India, Africa and 
Middle East. I was quite confident that there were many people who can 
better examing China than me, and looking back, it was a right decision.


Generally speaking, my principle is if there is a possible COI then 
avoid it. Defending a COI suspect (even if it is wrong) costs more 
energy than avoid get into that situation.


Beside of that, you also need to think that the best involved and 
engaged trustee may also have a single point of view, which may differ 
with the rest of that community. I know that in many things other zh-wk 
community member have a different opinion than me.



Greetings
Ting



Am 04/12/2016 um 01:30 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:

Hi Ting.

You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."

It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
colleagues, the motion won't pass.

In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
expense of the overall shared mission.

Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
other trustees?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:


Hello Anthony,

in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).

This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
power or say than other community members.

Greetings
Ting




Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:


Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole 
wrote:

jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
outside interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole 
wrote:

Good points worth repeating, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Hi Ting.

You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."

It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
colleagues, the motion won't pass.

In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
expense of the overall shared mission.

Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
other trustees?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> Hello Anthony,
>
> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>
> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
> power or say than other community members.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
>
>
> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>
>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>> initiative?
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole 
>> wrote:
>>
>> jytdog, regarding:
>>>
>>> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>> outside interests
>>> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
>>> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
>>> role."
>>>
>>> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>>>
>>> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
>>> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
>>> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
>>> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
>>> think,
>>> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
>>> it
>>> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

 We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
 and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
 discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the
 board,
 and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
 away.

 He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
 him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

 Anthony Cole


 On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:

 This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
> we
> changed
> <
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>
>> "
>>
> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content
> as
> an
> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the
> WMF
> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
> page,
> too)
>
> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
> Debating
> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point...
> and
> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
> areas
> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
> wasn't made public.
>
> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
> outside
> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step
> into
> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>
> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
>
> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>
>> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Ting Chen]

Hello Anthony,

in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet 
projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When 
everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may 
suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give 
directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out 
the Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).


This does not mean that the board members should not continue their 
involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having 
more power or say than other community members.


Greetings
Ting



Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:

Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:


jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside 
interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:


Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
away.

He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:


This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
we
changed
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed

"

message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
an
"existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
page,
too)

The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
Debating
what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
areas
actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
wasn't made public.

Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
seems to be the key issue looking forward.

I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
wrote:


I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:

"Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
knowledge with the world?"

Yes.

"What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
yearly
budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller

should

the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"

It depends on what we want them to do.

"...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
Wikipedia's
page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]

is

problematic?"

I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.

"If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
less frequently,
that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"

If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising

capacity, I

doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no

expert on

these things.


Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:


Anthony Cole wrote:

Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,

we're

all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.

Google and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> jytdog, regarding:
>
> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside 
> interests
> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
> role."
>
> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>
> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>>
>> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
>> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
>> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
>> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
>> away.
>>
>> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
>> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:
>>
>>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
>>> we
>>> changed
>>> <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>>> >"
>>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
>>> an
>>> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
>>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>>> page,
>>> too)
>>>
>>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>>> Debating
>>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
>>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
>>> areas
>>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>>> wasn't made public.
>>>
>>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
>>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
>>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>>
>>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>> >
>>> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>>> > knowledge with the world?"
>>> >
>>> > Yes.
>>> >
>>> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>> > yearly
>>> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>>> should
>>> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>>> >
>>> > It depends on what we want them to do.
>>> >
>>> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>>> > Wikipedia's
>>> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]
>>> is
>>> > problematic?"
>>> >
>>> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>>> >
>>> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>> > less frequently,
>>> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>>> >
>>> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising
>>> capacity, I
>>> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>>> expert on
>>> > these things.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Anthony Cole
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
>>> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>>> > we're
>>> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>>> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>>> > >
>>> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being
>>> accurate and
>>> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
>>> feature
>>> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
outside interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict with
a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>
> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
> away.
>
> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:
>
>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
>> changed
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>> >"
>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
>> an
>> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>> page,
>> too)
>>
>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>> Debating
>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>> wasn't made public.
>>
>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>
>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>> >
>> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>> > knowledge with the world?"
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>> > yearly
>> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>> should
>> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>> >
>> > It depends on what we want them to do.
>> >
>> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>> > Wikipedia's
>> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
>> > problematic?"
>> >
>> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>> >
>> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>> > less frequently,
>> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>> >
>> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity,
>> I
>> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>> expert on
>> > these things.
>> >
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
>> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>> > we're
>> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>> > >
>> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate
>> and
>> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
>> feature
>> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
>> re-users'
>> > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
>> correct.
>> > >
>> > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
>> > make
>> > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
>> > applauding
>> > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>> > >
>> > > As far as threats 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
away.

He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:

> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
> changed
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
> >"
> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an
> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page,
> too)
>
> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.  Debating
> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
> wasn't made public.
>
> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>
> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
> >
> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> > knowledge with the world?"
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > yearly
> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
> should
> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
> >
> > It depends on what we want them to do.
> >
> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> > Wikipedia's
> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
> > problematic?"
> >
> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
> >
> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> > less frequently,
> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
> >
> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert
> on
> > these things.
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> > we're
> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> > >
> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate
> and
> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
> feature
> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
> re-users'
> > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
> correct.
> > >
> > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> > make
> > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> > applauding
> > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> > >
> > > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> > > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
> management
> > > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> > >
> > > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> > > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia
> chapters?
> > >
> > > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> > > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> > > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> > > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> > > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> > > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[jytdog]

This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
changed
"
message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an
"existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page,
too)

The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.  Debating
what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
wasn't made public.

Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
seems to be the key issue looking forward.

I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>
> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> knowledge with the world?"
>
> Yes.
>
> "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> yearly
> budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller should
> the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>
> It depends on what we want them to do.
>
> "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> Wikipedia's
> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
> problematic?"
>
> I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>
> "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> less frequently,
> that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>
> If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
> doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert on
> these things.
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> we're
> > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> >
> > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate and
> > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" feature
> > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and re-users'
> > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and correct.
> >
> > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> make
> > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> applauding
> > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> >
> > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing management
> > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> >
> > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?
> >
> > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
> > advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
> > reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small and
> > recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
> > entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors no
> > longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
> > money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
> >
> > If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> less
> > frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're theoretically
> > then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
> > others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, exactly
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:

"Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
knowledge with the world?"

Yes.

"What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of yearly
budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller should
the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"

It depends on what we want them to do.

"...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
Wikipedia's
page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
problematic?"

I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.

"If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
less frequently,
that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"

If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert on
these things.


Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Anthony Cole wrote:
> >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, we're
> >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>
> Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate and
> reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" feature
> for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and re-users'
> interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and correct.
>
> Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we make
> our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be applauding
> Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>
> As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing management
> issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
>
> What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?
>
> Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
> advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
> reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small and
> recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
> entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors no
> longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
> money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
>
> If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit less
> frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're theoretically
> then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
> others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, exactly
> as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the data
> on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in perpetuity.
>
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] [recent changes]

[MZMcBride]

Anthony Cole wrote:
>Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, we're
>all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.

Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate and
reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" feature
for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and re-users'
interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and correct.

Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we make
our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be applauding
Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?

As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing management
issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.

What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?

Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
(citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small and
recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors no
longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.

If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit less
frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're theoretically
then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, exactly
as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the data
on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in perpetuity.

 
MZMcBride



___
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] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Just for the record, I raised the conflict of interest issue with Denny in
more than one venue - a Signpost discussion and (I think) here, and I
discussed it in other places. I never suggested he was a mole for Google
and I'm not aware of anyone who did - though I may have missed or
forgotten.

Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, we're
all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers. This
was described by Jimmy as an existential threat to the movement recently.
Denny is involved in those aspects of Google's operations. This is a
profound conflict of interest.

Denny is also a main thought leader behind Wikidata, and will have serious
biases concerning its priority.

These interests and involvements (Wikidata  and Google) are a good fit with
each other and we're lucky to have someone with Denny's ability and
integrity bridging the two. But it's just untenable for him to sit on the
board of trustees while he's in those roles.



Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

> >>>I feel that Denny's decision to resign makes sense, and in no way does
> this
> >>>decision put a cloud over his continued involvement in our community.
>
> Pine,
> I don't necessarily disagree with you,
> but you are doing a very common mistake in the Wikimedia world:
> you are not taking into account people's emotions.
> Making an hard decision always takes its toll, and it's all but granted
> that someone wants to stay
> in the same community that lacked trust in him and stressed him out for
> weeks.
> I personally trusted him, I felt the pain in his messages to this list in
> the last months, and I'm sad he has to leave
> from what I thought was an important decisive role.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Brill,
> >
> > Speaking generally (meaning, not in regard to the specific situation of
> > Denny), conflict of interest issues do happen on a regular basis. In my
> > experience, we also generally handle them well.
> >
> > Having numerous business relationships and interests is common in the
> > business world. Many times when there is a conflict of interest issue,
> it's
> > sufficient to recuse from particular discussions. Sometimes, the best
> > course of action is to resign from one role or another.
> >
> > Regarding Denny's situation specifically, after leaving the WMF board, he
> > may provide valuable input and may in some ways be more effective because
> > he will have stepped away from numerous COI issues.
> >
> > I feel that Denny's decision to resign makes sense, and in no way does
> this
> > decision put a cloud over his continued involvement in our community.
> >
> > There are many problems in the Wikimedia universe, but I think that our
> COI
> > policies are generally sound.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Brill Lyle 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I find this issue of Conflict of Interest exceedingly problematic.
> > >
> > > Almost every person working and living today will have a conflict of
> > > interest somehow, especially as one becomes a contributor to any of the
> > > Wikimedia projects, gets to know people, tries to organize events or
> > > promote the value of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc. Or if you work in any
> > field
> > > that specializes in anything online or technical. It is an impossible
> > > situation.
> > >
> > > I think that Wikimedia deals with this very badly -- and obviously at
> > great
> > > personal cost to talented, giving people. I am sorry.
> > >
> > > And to the bigger problem: Wikimedia loses a smart person who has loads
> > of
> > > ideas and expertise -- and is a contributor to Wikidata (one of the
> best
> > &
> > > most exciting projects to be visited upon Wikimedia) because of this
> > arcane
> > > and quite frankly needing to be re-evaluated rule? I see this as one of
> > the
> > > many problems of Wikimedia.
> > >
> > > EVERYONE has conflict of interest. We need the smartest and brightest
> > minds
> > > out there to contribute whatever they willingly can and will do on a
> > > volunteer basis. How can they not have connections to the real world as
> > > well as to online? Do we expect volunteers to be in their bunkers
> > > somewhere, siloed from the world, that these clean folks are the ones
> to
> > > move Wikimedia forward? It's laughable.
> > >
> > > One thing Wikimedia seems to do quite well is torture people who want
> to
> > > contribute by rules and policies that I think, quite frankly, are
> > > unworkable.
> > >
> > > Requiring some sort of absolute clean Conflict of Interest is an
> > impossible
> > > ideal. It is also obviously hurting the community.
> > >
> > > There is much change happening. I think it's an opportunity for newbies
> > > such as myself as well as folks with longer views to make 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Andrea Zanni]

>>>I feel that Denny's decision to resign makes sense, and in no way does
this
>>>decision put a cloud over his continued involvement in our community.

Pine,
I don't necessarily disagree with you,
but you are doing a very common mistake in the Wikimedia world:
you are not taking into account people's emotions.
Making an hard decision always takes its toll, and it's all but granted
that someone wants to stay
in the same community that lacked trust in him and stressed him out for
weeks.
I personally trusted him, I felt the pain in his messages to this list in
the last months, and I'm sad he has to leave
from what I thought was an important decisive role.

Aubrey



On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Brill,
>
> Speaking generally (meaning, not in regard to the specific situation of
> Denny), conflict of interest issues do happen on a regular basis. In my
> experience, we also generally handle them well.
>
> Having numerous business relationships and interests is common in the
> business world. Many times when there is a conflict of interest issue, it's
> sufficient to recuse from particular discussions. Sometimes, the best
> course of action is to resign from one role or another.
>
> Regarding Denny's situation specifically, after leaving the WMF board, he
> may provide valuable input and may in some ways be more effective because
> he will have stepped away from numerous COI issues.
>
> I feel that Denny's decision to resign makes sense, and in no way does this
> decision put a cloud over his continued involvement in our community.
>
> There are many problems in the Wikimedia universe, but I think that our COI
> policies are generally sound.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Brill Lyle  wrote:
>
> > I find this issue of Conflict of Interest exceedingly problematic.
> >
> > Almost every person working and living today will have a conflict of
> > interest somehow, especially as one becomes a contributor to any of the
> > Wikimedia projects, gets to know people, tries to organize events or
> > promote the value of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc. Or if you work in any
> field
> > that specializes in anything online or technical. It is an impossible
> > situation.
> >
> > I think that Wikimedia deals with this very badly -- and obviously at
> great
> > personal cost to talented, giving people. I am sorry.
> >
> > And to the bigger problem: Wikimedia loses a smart person who has loads
> of
> > ideas and expertise -- and is a contributor to Wikidata (one of the best
> &
> > most exciting projects to be visited upon Wikimedia) because of this
> arcane
> > and quite frankly needing to be re-evaluated rule? I see this as one of
> the
> > many problems of Wikimedia.
> >
> > EVERYONE has conflict of interest. We need the smartest and brightest
> minds
> > out there to contribute whatever they willingly can and will do on a
> > volunteer basis. How can they not have connections to the real world as
> > well as to online? Do we expect volunteers to be in their bunkers
> > somewhere, siloed from the world, that these clean folks are the ones to
> > move Wikimedia forward? It's laughable.
> >
> > One thing Wikimedia seems to do quite well is torture people who want to
> > contribute by rules and policies that I think, quite frankly, are
> > unworkable.
> >
> > Requiring some sort of absolute clean Conflict of Interest is an
> impossible
> > ideal. It is also obviously hurting the community.
> >
> > There is much change happening. I think it's an opportunity for newbies
> > such as myself as well as folks with longer views to make things better.
> Or
> > these mistakes will continue to plague the Wikimedia community -- and we
> > will all lose out.
> >
> > - Erika
> > *Erika Herzog*
> > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle*  >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Denny I am sorry to have lost a friend who is on the board but I am
> happy
> > > to welcome back a friend who can now express his ideas, his notions,
> his
> > > opposition, his point of view. Yes you work for Google. For me it means
> > > that you are again in an unique position to be an ambassador for both
> > > Google and WMF in either domain.
> > >
> > > You may have gained friends while on the board, the one sad thing is
> that
> > > it came at a huge cost to you personally. Nevermind what you do, I
> trust
> > > you to do well.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gerard
> > >
> > > On 8 April 2016 at 20:17, Denny Vrandecic 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> > > >
> > > > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order
> to
> > > > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to
> > act
> > > > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Brill Lyle]

Thanks for the response, Pine. I don't know if I agree with your assessment
re: resigning being the solution, but I am as not fully versed in many of
the details as you are obviously. I see this resignation as a real loss to
the community, and hope that possibly going forward there might be
alternatives to what seems to be a very torturous experience for
well-meaning, smart and talented folks who have only helped our community.

You bring up the business world, which is rife with conflicts of interests.
I have a background working in investment banking so I found that sort of
funny. They do a pretty terrible job of this -- see #PanamaPapers, people
sitting on boards, etc :-) So self-recusing seems sort of inadequate
and impractical...

I am obviously very new to all of this, but as I have come to learn more
about the Wikimedia family of projects, I have noticed that there is at
least one high profile public figure who "makes his living" off his
connection to Wikipedia -- Jimmy Wales -- which if that's not a conflict of
interest, well I don't know what is

And then there are various chapters that have paid staff, as well as
Wikimedia Foundation staff, who all what, stop editing once they become
paid?

Our local chapter here in New York City is starting to work with the WMF to
have annual grant-funded project positions, and as someone who is active in
the chapter's organization and event administration as well as a person who
is going to apply for one of the positions, this issue of conflict of
interest is a real stumbling block.

The issue is: Do I do a massive amount of free digital labor as a volunteer
(COI free) or do I get paid to do this work (COI rife)? Being paid seems
only fair, especially in contrast to country chapters who have as many
events as we do, and can rely upon paid staff to implement programming,
planning, and events. But being paid is a minefield of nightmarishness if
COI is applied harshly. It will completely affect the outcome of what can
be accomplished and done. Will pretty much completely handicap many of the
ideas I have to improve much of our work process.

But more on topic: I agree with Gnangarra here VERY well said.

This seems to be very true, which I have noticed on our chapter level as
well as on the larger WMF level. Denny realized he couldn't wait to start
and create Wikidata. If he didn't do it then it wouldn't have gotten done.
Without his expertise and skillsets -- which come from his professional
experience -- this would not have come to fruition. It is all inextricably
entwined. Quite frankly, to focus on bureaucracy over innovation is a sure
path towards death of all the great stuff that is possible around here. It
is riskier, because it relies upon people sticking their neck out and being
bold, but it's much better for our community than all of these flipping
rules and regulations weighing us down.

Fascinating discussion.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC



On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> This is one inherrant problem with COI those who get stuff done are forced
> to sit out discussions in preference for those who spend all their time
> talking and producing nothing. What we end up with is not leadership, its
> not project experience, its bureaucracy with out any true direction  where
> every idea that sounds good, that is well presented gets the go ahead with
> no understanding of what it takes to make a project work. Because of that
> we have KPI or metrics that satisfy the bureaucracy, force the organisors
> to run by the numbers rather than focus on producing real impact results
> over the longer term.
>
> High impact long term projects take considerable investment of time over
> time the dont happen in 3, 6, 12 month cycles, look at WLE & WLM its be
> year in year out commitments by volunteers to build and expand but every
> year they waste time seeking funding for the year this is where the Grant
> process should take the lead and just assign a long term budget to be
> managed by WMF financial staff and let the volunteers concentrate on having
> impact. Wikidata is in the same boat, its the bureaucratic begging
> processes that cost most of our volunteers time and produce the least
> impact.
>
> Denny's loss should be awake up call otherwise it'll be repeated
> continously especially from community selected seats, some where along the
> way we have created a bureaucracy at the expense of trust and assuming
> people are acting in good faith for the betterment of the projects
>
>
___
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] [recent changes]

[Gnangarra]

This is one inherrant problem with COI those who get stuff done are forced
to sit out discussions in preference for those who spend all their time
talking and producing nothing. What we end up with is not leadership, its
not project experience, its bureaucracy with out any true direction  where
every idea that sounds good, that is well presented gets the go ahead with
no understanding of what it takes to make a project work. Because of that
we have KPI or metrics that satisfy the bureaucracy, force the organisors
to run by the numbers rather than focus on producing real impact results
over the longer term.

High impact long term projects take considerable investment of time over
time the dont happen in 3, 6, 12 month cycles, look at WLE & WLM its be
year in year out commitments by volunteers to build and expand but every
year they waste time seeking funding for the year this is where the Grant
process should take the lead and just assign a long term budget to be
managed by WMF financial staff and let the volunteers concentrate on having
impact. Wikidata is in the same boat, its the bureaucratic begging
processes that cost most of our volunteers time and produce the least
impact.

Denny's loss should be awake up call otherwise it'll be repeated
continously especially from community selected seats, some where along the
way we have created a bureaucracy at the expense of trust and assuming
people are acting in good faith for the betterment of the projects

On 11 April 2016 at 15:55, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> For denny I see the situation simple and I am only able to write it as I
> read his clear email.
>
> First he is able to influence projects and general direction with his
> judgement and expertise.
>
> Second he has the expertise to get projects done.
>
> While I find it a real pity that we have less of first when he resigns I
> must admit that I consider second even more important. Choosing amongst
> proposals is easier than properly proposing. Especially if nobody steps up
> for something he feels should get done. For my part, I trust his expertise.
>
> I admire and find exemplary denny showing backbone here, something we see
> not enough. Deciding on this trade off should be possible at any time
> appropriate,  I do consequently *not* see something went awry with denny,
> nor a problem with the process.
>
> One hole in the process seems to be there though. Should a replacement be
> voted now or just the old result be taken. As the situation is new for
> every participant I tend to favour a vote.
>
> Rupert
> On Apr 11, 2016 07:56, "jytdog"  wrote:
>
> > Here is a response to Denny's resignation; his email has been sticking to
> > me.   To provide some context for what follows, I work a lot on COI and
> > advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and worked on COI issues professionally at
> a
> > university for the past 15 years.
> >
> > The limitations created by managing or eliminating Denny's various
> > conflicts of interest, appear to have been surprising to Denny, and were
> > definitely frustrating for him.
> >
> > Surprising and frustrating.  This is perhaps the result of a lack of
> > process.
> >
> > The WMF might want to consider putting in place a system of disclosing
> and
> > managing conflicts of interest for Trustees, before they actually join
> the
> > board, so that conflict management issues are both clear and acceptable
> to
> > the new Trustee and the Board at the start.
> >
> > The process could be the same as it is in many sectors -  a confidential
> > disclosure of relevant interests, identification of possible and
> perceived
> > conflicts between those interests and the obligations of a Trustee, and
> > then creation of a plan to manage those conflicts (and identification of
> > areas where the conflicts can't be managed but need to be eliminated by
> > recusal).  All done before the person actually joins the board.
> >
> > Once the person joins, the relevant external interests could be disclosed
> > at the board member's profile on the WMF board webpage.  The additional
> > step of publishing an outline of the management plan (at the same
> location)
> > would be something very useful in light of the high value that WMF staff
> > and the movement places on transparency.
> >
> > Please consider that.  And please pardon me if this is already done, but
> > something went awry with Denny.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> > >
> > > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to
> act
> > > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> > able
> > > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> > align
> > > very well with our mission - I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[rupert THURNER]

For denny I see the situation simple and I am only able to write it as I
read his clear email.

First he is able to influence projects and general direction with his
judgement and expertise.

Second he has the expertise to get projects done.

While I find it a real pity that we have less of first when he resigns I
must admit that I consider second even more important. Choosing amongst
proposals is easier than properly proposing. Especially if nobody steps up
for something he feels should get done. For my part, I trust his expertise.

I admire and find exemplary denny showing backbone here, something we see
not enough. Deciding on this trade off should be possible at any time
appropriate,  I do consequently *not* see something went awry with denny,
nor a problem with the process.

One hole in the process seems to be there though. Should a replacement be
voted now or just the old result be taken. As the situation is new for
every participant I tend to favour a vote.

Rupert
On Apr 11, 2016 07:56, "jytdog"  wrote:

> Here is a response to Denny's resignation; his email has been sticking to
> me.   To provide some context for what follows, I work a lot on COI and
> advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and worked on COI issues professionally at a
> university for the past 15 years.
>
> The limitations created by managing or eliminating Denny's various
> conflicts of interest, appear to have been surprising to Denny, and were
> definitely frustrating for him.
>
> Surprising and frustrating.  This is perhaps the result of a lack of
> process.
>
> The WMF might want to consider putting in place a system of disclosing and
> managing conflicts of interest for Trustees, before they actually join the
> board, so that conflict management issues are both clear and acceptable to
> the new Trustee and the Board at the start.
>
> The process could be the same as it is in many sectors -  a confidential
> disclosure of relevant interests, identification of possible and perceived
> conflicts between those interests and the obligations of a Trustee, and
> then creation of a plan to manage those conflicts (and identification of
> areas where the conflicts can't be managed but need to be eliminated by
> recusal).  All done before the person actually joins the board.
>
> Once the person joins, the relevant external interests could be disclosed
> at the board member's profile on the WMF board webpage.  The additional
> step of publishing an outline of the management plan (at the same location)
> would be something very useful in light of the high value that WMF staff
> and the movement places on transparency.
>
> Please consider that.  And please pardon me if this is already done, but
> something went awry with Denny.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
> wrote:
>
> > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> >
> > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> able
> > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> align
> > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests
> -
> > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > employment.
> >
> > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> >
> > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
> even
> > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had
> to
> > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> >
> > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google.
> I
> > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> > the case.
> >
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate
> > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
> > As some of you might know, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[jytdog]

Here is a response to Denny's resignation; his email has been sticking to
me.   To provide some context for what follows, I work a lot on COI and
advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and worked on COI issues professionally at a
university for the past 15 years.

The limitations created by managing or eliminating Denny's various
conflicts of interest, appear to have been surprising to Denny, and were
definitely frustrating for him.

Surprising and frustrating.  This is perhaps the result of a lack of
process.

The WMF might want to consider putting in place a system of disclosing and
managing conflicts of interest for Trustees, before they actually join the
board, so that conflict management issues are both clear and acceptable to
the new Trustee and the Board at the start.

The process could be the same as it is in many sectors -  a confidential
disclosure of relevant interests, identification of possible and perceived
conflicts between those interests and the obligations of a Trustee, and
then creation of a plan to manage those conflicts (and identification of
areas where the conflicts can't be managed but need to be eliminated by
recusal).  All done before the person actually joins the board.

Once the person joins, the relevant external interests could be disclosed
at the board member's profile on the WMF board webpage.  The additional
step of publishing an outline of the management plan (at the same location)
would be something very useful in light of the high value that WMF staff
and the movement places on transparency.

Please consider that.  And please pardon me if this is already done, but
something went awry with Denny.

Thanks.



On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
>
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
> to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
>
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
>
> This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
> though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
>
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> the case.
>
> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
>
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
>
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
> myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
> will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Pine W]

Brill,

Speaking generally (meaning, not in regard to the specific situation of
Denny), conflict of interest issues do happen on a regular basis. In my
experience, we also generally handle them well.

Having numerous business relationships and interests is common in the
business world. Many times when there is a conflict of interest issue, it's
sufficient to recuse from particular discussions. Sometimes, the best
course of action is to resign from one role or another.

Regarding Denny's situation specifically, after leaving the WMF board, he
may provide valuable input and may in some ways be more effective because
he will have stepped away from numerous COI issues.

I feel that Denny's decision to resign makes sense, and in no way does this
decision put a cloud over his continued involvement in our community.

There are many problems in the Wikimedia universe, but I think that our COI
policies are generally sound.

Pine



On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Brill Lyle  wrote:

> I find this issue of Conflict of Interest exceedingly problematic.
>
> Almost every person working and living today will have a conflict of
> interest somehow, especially as one becomes a contributor to any of the
> Wikimedia projects, gets to know people, tries to organize events or
> promote the value of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc. Or if you work in any field
> that specializes in anything online or technical. It is an impossible
> situation.
>
> I think that Wikimedia deals with this very badly -- and obviously at great
> personal cost to talented, giving people. I am sorry.
>
> And to the bigger problem: Wikimedia loses a smart person who has loads of
> ideas and expertise -- and is a contributor to Wikidata (one of the best &
> most exciting projects to be visited upon Wikimedia) because of this arcane
> and quite frankly needing to be re-evaluated rule? I see this as one of the
> many problems of Wikimedia.
>
> EVERYONE has conflict of interest. We need the smartest and brightest minds
> out there to contribute whatever they willingly can and will do on a
> volunteer basis. How can they not have connections to the real world as
> well as to online? Do we expect volunteers to be in their bunkers
> somewhere, siloed from the world, that these clean folks are the ones to
> move Wikimedia forward? It's laughable.
>
> One thing Wikimedia seems to do quite well is torture people who want to
> contribute by rules and policies that I think, quite frankly, are
> unworkable.
>
> Requiring some sort of absolute clean Conflict of Interest is an impossible
> ideal. It is also obviously hurting the community.
>
> There is much change happening. I think it's an opportunity for newbies
> such as myself as well as folks with longer views to make things better. Or
> these mistakes will continue to plague the Wikimedia community -- and we
> will all lose out.
>
> - Erika
> *Erika Herzog*
> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Denny I am sorry to have lost a friend who is on the board but I am happy
> > to welcome back a friend who can now express his ideas, his notions, his
> > opposition, his point of view. Yes you work for Google. For me it means
> > that you are again in an unique position to be an ambassador for both
> > Google and WMF in either domain.
> >
> > You may have gained friends while on the board, the one sad thing is that
> > it came at a huge cost to you personally. Nevermind what you do, I trust
> > you to do well.
> > Thanks,
> > Gerard
> >
> > On 8 April 2016 at 20:17, Denny Vrandecic 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> > >
> > > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to
> act
> > > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> > able
> > > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> > align
> > > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my
> considerations
> > > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of
> interests
> > -
> > > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > > employment.
> > >
> > > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to
> deal
> > > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case,
> and
> > > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> > >
> > > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > > potential 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Brill Lyle]

I find this issue of Conflict of Interest exceedingly problematic.

Almost every person working and living today will have a conflict of
interest somehow, especially as one becomes a contributor to any of the
Wikimedia projects, gets to know people, tries to organize events or
promote the value of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc. Or if you work in any field
that specializes in anything online or technical. It is an impossible
situation.

I think that Wikimedia deals with this very badly -- and obviously at great
personal cost to talented, giving people. I am sorry.

And to the bigger problem: Wikimedia loses a smart person who has loads of
ideas and expertise -- and is a contributor to Wikidata (one of the best &
most exciting projects to be visited upon Wikimedia) because of this arcane
and quite frankly needing to be re-evaluated rule? I see this as one of the
many problems of Wikimedia.

EVERYONE has conflict of interest. We need the smartest and brightest minds
out there to contribute whatever they willingly can and will do on a
volunteer basis. How can they not have connections to the real world as
well as to online? Do we expect volunteers to be in their bunkers
somewhere, siloed from the world, that these clean folks are the ones to
move Wikimedia forward? It's laughable.

One thing Wikimedia seems to do quite well is torture people who want to
contribute by rules and policies that I think, quite frankly, are
unworkable.

Requiring some sort of absolute clean Conflict of Interest is an impossible
ideal. It is also obviously hurting the community.

There is much change happening. I think it's an opportunity for newbies
such as myself as well as folks with longer views to make things better. Or
these mistakes will continue to plague the Wikimedia community -- and we
will all lose out.

- Erika
*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 


On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Denny I am sorry to have lost a friend who is on the board but I am happy
> to welcome back a friend who can now express his ideas, his notions, his
> opposition, his point of view. Yes you work for Google. For me it means
> that you are again in an unique position to be an ambassador for both
> Google and WMF in either domain.
>
> You may have gained friends while on the board, the one sad thing is that
> it came at a huge cost to you personally. Nevermind what you do, I trust
> you to do well.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> On 8 April 2016 at 20:17, Denny Vrandecic 
> wrote:
>
> > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> >
> > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> able
> > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> align
> > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests
> -
> > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > employment.
> >
> > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> >
> > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
> even
> > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had
> to
> > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> >
> > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google.
> I
> > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> > the case.
> >
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate
> > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
> > As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> > actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> > could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> > Phabricator has to be considered under the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Denny,

Thanks for explaining your reasoning, which hints towards a lack of
tolerance and understanding towards people wearing several hats. It doesn't
have an easy solution, as there is too much lack of trust.

The only thing I wish is that your decision enables you to participate in
the movement more effectively, and without any concern.

Looking forward to your new ideas!

Regards
Micru

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Hi Denny
> Your email is very interesting to understand the conflict you were
> experimenting to introduce innovation and good ideas in Wikimedia projects.
>
> In my opinion the biggest problem is the overlapping between direction and
> execution. Do you think that your action would be less efficient operating
> outside the board of trustees?
>
> Your opinion would be very appreciated because you are a good example of a
> member who can really address the decisions in an innovative direction but
> blocked by a strict definition of COI.
>
> Kind regards
> Il 08 Apr 2016 20:17, "Denny Vrandecic"  ha
> scritto:
>
> > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> >
> > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> able
> > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> align
> > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests
> -
> > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > employment.
> >
> > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> >
> > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
> even
> > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had
> to
> > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> >
> > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google.
> I
> > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> > the case.
> >
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate
> > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
> > As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> > actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> > could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> > Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> > "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler
> writing
> > that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
> >
> > It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> > with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> > advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> > you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> > creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to
> do
> > myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough -
> someone
> > will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> > smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was
> back
> > then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> > wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> > anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> > realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in
> a
> > reasonable timeframe.
> >
> > And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I
> cannot
> > take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will
> be
> > regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> > that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one
> deciding
> > on them. I understand 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi Denny
Your email is very interesting to understand the conflict you were
experimenting to introduce innovation and good ideas in Wikimedia projects.

In my opinion the biggest problem is the overlapping between direction and
execution. Do you think that your action would be less efficient operating
outside the board of trustees?

Your opinion would be very appreciated because you are a good example of a
member who can really address the decisions in an innovative direction but
blocked by a strict definition of COI.

Kind regards
Il 08 Apr 2016 20:17, "Denny Vrandecic"  ha
scritto:

> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
>
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
> to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
>
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
>
> This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
> though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
>
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> the case.
>
> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
>
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
>
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
> myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
> will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
> reasonable timeframe.
>
> And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
> take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
> regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
> on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
>
> I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
> bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
> exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
>
> I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
> of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Denny I am sorry to have lost a friend who is on the board but I am happy
to welcome back a friend who can now express his ideas, his notions, his
opposition, his point of view. Yes you work for Google. For me it means
that you are again in an unique position to be an ambassador for both
Google and WMF in either domain.

You may have gained friends while on the board, the one sad thing is that
it came at a huge cost to you personally. Nevermind what you do, I trust
you to do well.
Thanks,
Gerard

On 8 April 2016 at 20:17, Denny Vrandecic  wrote:

> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
>
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
> to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
>
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
>
> This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
> though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
>
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> the case.
>
> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
>
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
>
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
> myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
> will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
> reasonable timeframe.
>
> And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
> take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
> regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
> on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
>
> I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
> bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
> exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
>
> I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
> of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Brion Vibber]

Denny, thanks for all the work you've put in over the years and in your
time on the board in particular -- it's been rough indeed lately, and I
understand the need to refocus.

Looking forward to continuing to hear from you in the future!

-- brion

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
>
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
> to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
>
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
>
> This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
> though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
>
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> the case.
>
> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
>
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
>
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
> myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
> will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
> reasonable timeframe.
>
> And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
> take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
> regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
> on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
>
> I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
> bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
> exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
>
> I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
> of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
> Conflict, or to step away from the position of power. Since the first
> option is unsatisfying, the second option unavailable, only the third
> option remains.
>
> So I have decided to resign from the Board of Trustees.
>
> It was not an easy decision, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Erik Moeller]

Hey Denny --

Kudos for your well-reasoned decision, and for your service on the
Board during a very challenging time. One of the beautiful things
about Wikimedia is how much scope you can have to move things forward
without any special roles or affiliation. I very much look forward to
reading your crazy-or-maybe-not-so-crazy ideas!

Erik

___
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] [recent changes]

[Sydney Poore]

Denny,

Thank you for your very thoughtful email. I appreciate your reasoning.
Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Manuel Schneider <
manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:

> Thanks a lot Denny for your honest and inspiring mail.
> I kept stumm for the most part of the last month's controversy, as I
> merely could have +1ed a lot of stuff that has been said and that's not
> worth spinding bandwidth and people's time.
>
> Now I want to take that time to say thank you, for your time on the
> board and for your role in Wikidata. For a return in a role that
> inspires you again.
>
> /Manuel
>
> On 04/08/2016 08:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
> > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> >
> > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> able
> > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> align
> > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests
> -
> > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > employment.
> >
> > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> >
> > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
> even
> > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had
> to
> > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> >
> > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google.
> I
> > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> > the case.
> >
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate
> > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
> > As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> > actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> > could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> > Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> > "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler
> writing
> > that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
> >
> > It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> > with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> > advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> > you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> > creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to
> do
> > myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough -
> someone
> > will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> > smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was
> back
> > then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> > wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> > anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> > realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in
> a
> > reasonable timeframe.
> >
> > And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I
> cannot
> > take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will
> be
> > regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> > that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one
> deciding
> > on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> > member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> > proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
> >
> > I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> > Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> > conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Manuel Schneider]

Thanks a lot Denny for your honest and inspiring mail.
I kept stumm for the most part of the last month's controversy, as I
merely could have +1ed a lot of stuff that has been said and that's not
worth spinding bandwidth and people's time.

Now I want to take that time to say thank you, for your time on the
board and for your role in Wikidata. For a return in a role that
inspires you again.

/Manuel

On 04/08/2016 08:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> 
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
> to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
> 
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> 
> This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
> though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> 
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> the case.
> 
> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> 
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
> 
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
> myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
> will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
> reasonable timeframe.
> 
> And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
> take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
> regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
> on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
> 
> I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
> bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
> exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
> 
> I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
> of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
> Conflict, or to step away from the position of power. Since the first
> option is unsatisfying, the second option unavailable, only 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Mardetanha]

sad news to hear
wish you best of luck

Mardetanha

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
>
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
> to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
>
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
>
> This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
> though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
>
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> the case.
>
> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
>
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
>
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
> myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
> will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
> reasonable timeframe.
>
> And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
> take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
> regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
> on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
>
> I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
> bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
> exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
>
> I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
> of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
> Conflict, or to step away from the position of power. Since the first
> option is unsatisfying, the second option unavailable, only the third
> option remains.
>
> So I have decided to resign from the Board of Trustees.
>
> It was not an easy decision, and certainly not a step made any easier by
> the events in the last few months. I understand that I will disappoint many
> of the people who voted for me, and I want to apologize: I am sorry,
> honestly