Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Isarra Yos]

He isn't asking Dariusz to leave the board, but the position of chair of 
a particular committee on it. While I have no idea if this is called for 
either, it seems an important distinction.


-I

On 03/05/16 04:23, Anthony Cole wrote:

Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He seems to be
decent and intelligent. The Arnnon thing was an error but it was clearly
part of a broader problem. Yes, they all need training but that seems to be
in the works. I hope he stays, and is re-elected if he chooses to run next
time.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:


On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fæ  wrote:


[...]

With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high

quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
"missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
& Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
including major changes at the board level.
[...]
3.


https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf&page=5



The explanation for this, is at the top of

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
: "NB: In a mature 90-day goalsetting process, the “sweet spot” is for
about 75% of goals to be a success. Organizations that are meeting 100% of
their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals."
Note that partial successes are not also represented, if one just checks
the overview result; it's a simple binary system. See the textual notes for
details about partial successes within individual goals.
Plus, not reaching that 75% target of completely-successful goals, is
perhaps also attributable to the intense and widespread stress of that time
period...
Hope that helps.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[James Heilman]

That Dariusz is willing to engage with the community is very positive. The
issues that occurred around the selecting of Arnnon are complicated and I
agree with Dariusz were more systemic in nature. I do not see the movement
as being well served by him stepping down.

James

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He seems to be
> decent and intelligent. The Arnnon thing was an error but it was clearly
> part of a broader problem. Yes, they all need training but that seems to be
> in the works. I hope he stays, and is re-elected if he chooses to run next
> time.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
> nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
> > > quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
> > > WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
> > > themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
> > > "missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
> > > & Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
> > > like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
> > > including major changes at the board level.
> > > [...]
> > > 3.
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf&page=5
> >
> >
> >
> > The explanation for this, is at the top of
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
> > : "NB: In a mature 90-day goalsetting process, the “sweet spot” is for
> > about 75% of goals to be a success. Organizations that are meeting 100%
> of
> > their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals."
> > Note that partial successes are not also represented, if one just checks
> > the overview result; it's a simple binary system. See the textual notes
> for
> > details about partial successes within individual goals.
> > Plus, not reaching that 75% target of completely-successful goals, is
> > perhaps also attributable to the intense and widespread stress of that
> time
> > period...
> > Hope that helps.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Anthony Cole]

Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He seems to be
decent and intelligent. The Arnnon thing was an error but it was clearly
part of a broader problem. Yes, they all need training but that seems to be
in the works. I hope he stays, and is re-elected if he chooses to run next
time.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
> > quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
> > WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
> > themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
> > "missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
> > & Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
> > like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
> > including major changes at the board level.
> > [...]
> > 3.
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf&page=5
>
>
>
> The explanation for this, is at the top of
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
> : "NB: In a mature 90-day goalsetting process, the “sweet spot” is for
> about 75% of goals to be a success. Organizations that are meeting 100% of
> their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals."
> Note that partial successes are not also represented, if one just checks
> the overview result; it's a simple binary system. See the textual notes for
> details about partial successes within individual goals.
> Plus, not reaching that 75% target of completely-successful goals, is
> perhaps also attributable to the intense and widespread stress of that time
> period...
> Hope that helps.
> ___
> 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] Crisis of Confidence

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> [...]

With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
> quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
> WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
> themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
> "missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
> & Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
> like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
> including major changes at the board level.
> [...]
> 3.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf&page=5



The explanation for this, is at the top of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
: "NB: In a mature 90-day goalsetting process, the “sweet spot” is for
about 75% of goals to be a success. Organizations that are meeting 100% of
their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals."
Note that partial successes are not also represented, if one just checks
the overview result; it's a simple binary system. See the textual notes for
details about partial successes within individual goals.
Plus, not reaching that 75% target of completely-successful goals, is
perhaps also attributable to the intense and widespread stress of that time
period...
Hope that helps.
___
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] Crisis of Confidence

[ido ivri]

>
> That's great. Please do the right thing and take the initiative to
> step down from the volunteer position of chair, so that someone with a
> history of excellent judgment on trustee governance can take the
> position.


Again, *you* may think it's a good idea. I regard Dariusz to be one of the
better trustees around. Dariusz, I want to echo Sydney's thanks, to you
specifically, for your thoughtful and continuous engagement, and also for
your service (which is usually thankless, to say the least).

Ido
___
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] Crisis of Confidence

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Really.

We have had a rough patch where management and people in the WMF were at
odds. We have a rough patch where people for all kinds of reason decide to
no longer be a member of the WMF board. It is no wonder that things are not
as they should be as a consequence. When you add the negativity out of much
of the community re the work of the WMF. No is the default answer,
negativity the standard attitude. I think the WMF given such circumstances
does really well.

When you want to stick to the facts, it is also how you present them. When
314 people vote, I find this almost an insignificant number given the size
of our community.

So from your position the glass is half empty, I see it is half full. I
think it can only get better and that is not how I experience your
position. In the mean time I do not see how the "community" helps in this.
For the community the board is very much peripheral to the objective and
imho too much is made of the board. As to Mr Geshuri he is not the only
person who is no longer on the board.

This whole notion of "understanding to the next decimal point" of what
happened makes us a reactive organisation and to put it bluntly that is not
what we need. We need an organisation that is proactive and that will only
happen when there is some trust. This whole drive to get more
"transparency" will only dig us a bigger hole.

So do consider what it is that we are to achieve and what your role is. My
role is simple, I want us to embrace approaches and technology that will
particularly support the other languages. I want us to do a much better job
at understanding what our readers are looking for and it may be well
intentioned but the current approach will not improve things and will only
constrain our ability to achieve our expressed goals.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 2 May 2016 at 11:21, Fæ  wrote:

> Perhaps we could stick to facts?
>
> In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
> proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
> community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
> confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
> voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
> remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee, and have
> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.
>
> With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
> quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
> WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
> themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
> "missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
> & Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
> like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
> including major changes at the board level.
>
> It is an easy and lazy response to shout down objections by deriding
> everyone that has a complaint a malcontent or a troll. However after a
> few years of the WMF board failing to improve their self-governance or
> transparency, it's time to actually change things rather than
> accepting soft soap and political position statements that hold nobody
> to account.
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri
> 2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208
> 3.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf&page=5
>
> Fae
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The most important thing about the board and the WMF is that they enable
> > what we do. The dependence on them delivering services that are of a high
> > quality is something they deliver. At the same time there is a coterie of
> > "Wikipedians" that want to remake the WMF in their own image. They have
> > proven not to be interested in our projects really. They have been
> > challenged to consider practical things that will deliver much better
> > quality for Wikipedia but it proved not to be what they are interested
> in.
> >
> > Arguably there is a crisis. But the crisis has less to do with the WMF
> than
> > with some in the community. They call themselves the community. IMHO they
> > are malcontents; they have no agenda but single issues that will not help
> > us achieve what the WMF is about.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 1 May 2016 at 23:36, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> >
> >> It seems that the engagement between the Board and the Community has
> broken
> >> down, to the point that there may be a crisis of confidence developing.
> >> Perhaps members of this list would care to express their views at
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Crisis_of_confidence
> >> ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Fæ]

On 2 May 2016 at 15:17, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
...
>> Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee
>>
>> responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
>> still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance
>> process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
>> resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?
>
>
> You are correct - the BGC recommended Arnnon, and I personally had not found
> about the controversy when I was reviewing his files. I stated this on the
> list, admitted the mistake, as well as tried to understand and explain how
> it happened. I also proposed the changes to the future recruitment process,
> which have been introduced.
>
> My understanding is that I'm still in this position, as the Board has
> assumed that this mistake was systematic, not personal. However, I am not
> tied to my seat, or to my presence on the Board. If the community recalls
> me, I will step down from either the BGC or the Board in general.
>
> cheers,
>
> dj

That's great. Please do the right thing and take the initiative to
step down from the volunteer position of chair, so that someone with a
history of excellent judgment on trustee governance can take the
position. Ting Chen for example, the only trustee I can recall that
walked away because he felt that trustees should not hold onto their
seats indefinitely, a move that later resulted in trustee positions
becoming time-limited.

As for your presumptions about my bad faith, the current set of
trustees are super glued to their trustee seats, despite the publicly
excruciating results of the Geshuri vote of confidence and the recent
factual revelations about Jimmy Wales' bullying behaviour that would
result in expulsion, were he a representative from most other
organizations. The WMF board can not rely on an /automatic/
presumption of good faith in the context of this terrible history,
until they earn back the respect that their trustee positions deserve
from the Wikimedia Community; especially the WMF trustees that nobody
but fellow trustees got to vote on and have never been held to
account.

Thanks for your replies, even though you are dropping the mic on
further discussion.[1]

P.S. On Sydney's comment, yes Dariusz is a volunteer. There are WMF
paid employees that support the committee that I would expect to do
most of the hard work of drafting versions and collating research. A
chair must be able to delegate, have a basic vision, and ensure that
the right skills are present on the committee to deliver the targets
as part of that vision/conceptual strategy. As for a new plan, I have
not suggested a super duper detailed plan with schedules and gantt
charts, I'm asking for the most simple commitments and meaningful
deadlines in the process to get there. It's not rocket science, this
could easily have been done within a couple of weeks of Geshuri's
departure when it was most urgent and would have demonstrated that the
board is actually interested in listing to the community, acting on
their ethical failures even when they refuse to admit them in public,
and doing a bit more than deflecting their critics.

Links
1. http://news.sky.com/story/1687620/boom-queen-drops-the-mic-on-the-obamas

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Sydney Poore]

Dariusz*, *

Thank you for continuing to engage with the community.

Responding to highly critical voices in the movement is not fun.

Beside the highly critical voices on the mailing list, there are many
people who read this list and
appreciate communication from you.
Warm regards,
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have
> > not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> > processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it."
>
>
> I'm not sure if it is typical for the bodies such as Board to issue
> official apologies - but for my part, I definitely apologize for all
> shortcomings of the procedure I've been involved in, mistakes in oversight,
> etc.
>
>
>
> > After
> > many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to
> > governance,
>
>
> Again, you seem not to have noticed that we nearly immediately amended the
> recruitment procedure in a way that will make repeating a mistake unlikely.
>
>
>
> > nor is there any specific or measurable commitment to what
> > the goal is for an "open conversation" or how that works.
>
>
> How governance works? In fact, it would be nice to have this conversation
> as well, sure. The problem is that there are multiple demands from the
> community, and there are also external needs for the Board to address.
> We're out of bandwidth. Is the governance talk top priority now? Maybe. But
> I'm not convinced that it is more important than the ED search, or the
> expert seat fulfilment, or comments on strategy/plan, better enculturation
> and on-boarding of external Board members, and so on.
>
>
>
> > Knowing the
> > history of the WMF board, there will no doubt be a pre-prepared policy
> > or process and it will be implemented with barely any regard for
> > community views which will be "canvassed" after the fact as a sop to
> > "consensus".
> >
>
> Well, not engaging with a person who clearly assumes extremely bad faith is
> a privilege I'm going to exercise. Feel free to keep on writing of course,
> just excuse me for not getting involved in replies to you in this thread
> for a while.
>
>
>
> > Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee
> >
> responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
> > still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance
> > process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
> > resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?
> >
>
> You are correct - the BGC recommended Arnnon, and I personally had not
> found about the controversy when I was reviewing his files. I stated this
> on the list, admitted the mistake, as well as tried to understand and
> explain how it happened. I also proposed the changes to the future
> recruitment process, which have been introduced.
>
> My understanding is that I'm still in this position, as the Board has
> assumed that this mistake was systematic, not personal. However, I am not
> tied to my seat, or to my presence on the Board. If the community recalls
> me, I will step down from either the BGC or the Board in general.
>
> cheers,
>
> dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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] Crisis of Confidence

[Sydney Poore]

Hello Fae,

From my perspective, Dariusz is committed to improving the governance of
Board. But, he is in a volunteer position, and is limited in the percentage
of his time that he can devote to WMF Board business.

Even if he personally was devoting 60 hours a week to reforming the Board,
it would be impossible to have a new plan in place this soon.

Sydney



Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have
> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it." After
> many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to
> governance, nor is there any specific or measurable commitment to what
> the goal is for an "open conversation" or how that works. Knowing the
> history of the WMF board, there will no doubt be a pre-prepared policy
> or process and it will be implemented with barely any regard for
> community views which will be "canvassed" after the fact as a sop to
> "consensus".
>
> No, I have not forgotten that Arnnon had to resign, thanks for
> pointing that out, and I recall how the WMF board unanimously
> supported him staying just the day before, even though it was
> absolutely obvious that he was not fit to be a trustee, and had he
> stayed the WMF board would have been a ghastly joke in terms of ethics
> for HR, at a time when the WMF's inability to do a professional job of
> HR in terms of the most basic staff morale was becoming a public fact.
>
> Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee
> responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
> still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance
> process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
> resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 14:21, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> > 02.05.2016 5:22 AM "Fæ"  napisał(a):
> >>
> >> Perhaps we could stick to facts?
> >>
> >> In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
> >> proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
> >> community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
> >> confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
> >> voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
> >> remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee,
> >
> > You must have missed the announcement that he stepped down from the
> Board.
> >
> > and have
> >> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> >> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.
> >>
> >
> > I posted three items that we're changing in the future recruitment
> process
> > quite quickly. Currently we have an ongoing discussion on how to reform
> the
> > Board composition, and I hope we will be able to have an open
> conversation
> > about these ideas soon (read: before Wikimania).
> >
> > I'm sure that some people would like the WMF to be more like a Telekom. I
> > don't think that corporate standards and procedures are the answer, and I
> > really would like the WMF to be what it was meant to be: a
> mission-driven,
> > knowledge organization in NGO/open-source environment, run by passionate
> > employees in a strong, community- and staff- friendly culture, that
> > delivers visionary results.
> >
> > We're far from there yet, but following Telekom standards is not the
> > answer. The WMF should improve by all means, and it also should be more
> > accountable - but this is why this year it returns to the FDC process
> > (which has been one of my priorities to increase communal control), and
> > that should provide sensible community's feedback.
> >
> > Dj
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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] Crisis of Confidence

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have
> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it."


I'm not sure if it is typical for the bodies such as Board to issue
official apologies - but for my part, I definitely apologize for all
shortcomings of the procedure I've been involved in, mistakes in oversight,
etc.



> After
> many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to
> governance,


Again, you seem not to have noticed that we nearly immediately amended the
recruitment procedure in a way that will make repeating a mistake unlikely.



> nor is there any specific or measurable commitment to what
> the goal is for an "open conversation" or how that works.


How governance works? In fact, it would be nice to have this conversation
as well, sure. The problem is that there are multiple demands from the
community, and there are also external needs for the Board to address.
We're out of bandwidth. Is the governance talk top priority now? Maybe. But
I'm not convinced that it is more important than the ED search, or the
expert seat fulfilment, or comments on strategy/plan, better enculturation
and on-boarding of external Board members, and so on.



> Knowing the
> history of the WMF board, there will no doubt be a pre-prepared policy
> or process and it will be implemented with barely any regard for
> community views which will be "canvassed" after the fact as a sop to
> "consensus".
>

Well, not engaging with a person who clearly assumes extremely bad faith is
a privilege I'm going to exercise. Feel free to keep on writing of course,
just excuse me for not getting involved in replies to you in this thread
for a while.



> Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee
>
responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
> still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance
> process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
> resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?
>

You are correct - the BGC recommended Arnnon, and I personally had not
found about the controversy when I was reviewing his files. I stated this
on the list, admitted the mistake, as well as tried to understand and
explain how it happened. I also proposed the changes to the future
recruitment process, which have been introduced.

My understanding is that I'm still in this position, as the Board has
assumed that this mistake was systematic, not personal. However, I am not
tied to my seat, or to my presence on the Board. If the community recalls
me, I will step down from either the BGC or the Board in general.

cheers,

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Fæ]

Hi Dariusz,

Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have
not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it." After
many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to
governance, nor is there any specific or measurable commitment to what
the goal is for an "open conversation" or how that works. Knowing the
history of the WMF board, there will no doubt be a pre-prepared policy
or process and it will be implemented with barely any regard for
community views which will be "canvassed" after the fact as a sop to
"consensus".

No, I have not forgotten that Arnnon had to resign, thanks for
pointing that out, and I recall how the WMF board unanimously
supported him staying just the day before, even though it was
absolutely obvious that he was not fit to be a trustee, and had he
stayed the WMF board would have been a ghastly joke in terms of ethics
for HR, at a time when the WMF's inability to do a professional job of
HR in terms of the most basic staff morale was becoming a public fact.

Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee
responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance
process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?

Thanks,
Fae

On 2 May 2016 at 14:21, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> 02.05.2016 5:22 AM "Fæ"  napisał(a):
>>
>> Perhaps we could stick to facts?
>>
>> In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
>> proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
>> community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
>> confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
>> voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
>> remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee,
>
> You must have missed the announcement that he stepped down from the Board.
>
> and have
>> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
>> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.
>>
>
> I posted three items that we're changing in the future recruitment process
> quite quickly. Currently we have an ongoing discussion on how to reform the
> Board composition, and I hope we will be able to have an open conversation
> about these ideas soon (read: before Wikimania).
>
> I'm sure that some people would like the WMF to be more like a Telekom. I
> don't think that corporate standards and procedures are the answer, and I
> really would like the WMF to be what it was meant to be: a mission-driven,
> knowledge organization in NGO/open-source environment, run by passionate
> employees in a strong, community- and staff- friendly culture, that
> delivers visionary results.
>
> We're far from there yet, but following Telekom standards is not the
> answer. The WMF should improve by all means, and it also should be more
> accountable - but this is why this year it returns to the FDC process
> (which has been one of my priorities to increase communal control), and
> that should provide sensible community's feedback.
>
> Dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

02.05.2016 5:22 AM "Fæ"  napisał(a):
>
> Perhaps we could stick to facts?
>
> In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
> proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
> community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
> confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
> voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
> remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee,

You must have missed the announcement that he stepped down from the Board.

and have
> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.
>

I posted three items that we're changing in the future recruitment process
quite quickly. Currently we have an ongoing discussion on how to reform the
Board composition, and I hope we will be able to have an open conversation
about these ideas soon (read: before Wikimania).

I'm sure that some people would like the WMF to be more like a Telekom. I
don't think that corporate standards and procedures are the answer, and I
really would like the WMF to be what it was meant to be: a mission-driven,
knowledge organization in NGO/open-source environment, run by passionate
employees in a strong, community- and staff- friendly culture, that
delivers visionary results.

We're far from there yet, but following Telekom standards is not the
answer. The WMF should improve by all means, and it also should be more
accountable - but this is why this year it returns to the FDC process
(which has been one of my priorities to increase communal control), and
that should provide sensible community's feedback.

Dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Fæ]

Perhaps we could stick to facts?

In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee, and have
not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.

With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
"missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
& Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
including major changes at the board level.

It is an easy and lazy response to shout down objections by deriding
everyone that has a complaint a malcontent or a troll. However after a
few years of the WMF board failing to improve their self-governance or
transparency, it's time to actually change things rather than
accepting soft soap and political position statements that hold nobody
to account.

Links
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208
3. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf&page=5

Fae

On 2 May 2016 at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> The most important thing about the board and the WMF is that they enable
> what we do. The dependence on them delivering services that are of a high
> quality is something they deliver. At the same time there is a coterie of
> "Wikipedians" that want to remake the WMF in their own image. They have
> proven not to be interested in our projects really. They have been
> challenged to consider practical things that will deliver much better
> quality for Wikipedia but it proved not to be what they are interested in.
>
> Arguably there is a crisis. But the crisis has less to do with the WMF than
> with some in the community. They call themselves the community. IMHO they
> are malcontents; they have no agenda but single issues that will not help
> us achieve what the WMF is about.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 1 May 2016 at 23:36, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
>
>> It seems that the engagement between the Board and the Community has broken
>> down, to the point that there may be a crisis of confidence developing.
>> Perhaps members of this list would care to express their views at
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Crisis_of_confidence
>> ___
>> 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, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
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] Crisis of Confidence

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The most important thing about the board and the WMF is that they enable
what we do. The dependence on them delivering services that are of a high
quality is something they deliver. At the same time there is a coterie of
"Wikipedians" that want to remake the WMF in their own image. They have
proven not to be interested in our projects really. They have been
challenged to consider practical things that will deliver much better
quality for Wikipedia but it proved not to be what they are interested in.

Arguably there is a crisis. But the crisis has less to do with the WMF than
with some in the community. They call themselves the community. IMHO they
are malcontents; they have no agenda but single issues that will not help
us achieve what the WMF is about.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 1 May 2016 at 23:36, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> It seems that the engagement between the Board and the Community has broken
> down, to the point that there may be a crisis of confidence developing.
> Perhaps members of this list would care to express their views at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Crisis_of_confidence
> ___
> 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,