Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Chris Sherlock]

Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 9:24 AM, Leila Zia  wrote:
> 
> ​If you see that you don't have a healthy line of communication with Jimmy,
> you may want to consider not communicating with him at all. Initiating
> and/or participating in conversations about someone when you cannot have a
> healthy conversation with that person won't be beneficial. You will end up
> being in a position that you cannot improve things between the two of you,
> but you will have extra information that you will feel burdened to share
> with others.

That's pretty unfair. It was Jimmy who initiated this off list correspondence 
with James and Peter. He didn't ask Peter if he wanted to be a mediator, and I 
think Peter's response makes that clear. In fact, saying that Peter was an 
active participant in this discussion off list is totally inaccurate. As you 
can see from the response that Peter provided to Jimmy (which he has shared 
with us now), Peter has taken great pains to make it clear he doesn't want to 
be involved in direct correspondence on this issue and he wants any discussion 
he takes part in to be in public.

Basically, whilst I respect your views on this situation, in my view the email 
you are directing to Peter is better directed to Jimmy.

Chris
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

>
> ​... ​
> The truth is, I am genuinely
> bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things
> that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.
>
> With one exception that I can think of, everything James has said has
​so far ​
turned out to be true.​ The exception is that he said Dariusz had seconded
the motion to accept the Knight grant, but in fact it was Denny. When the
error was pointed out, he corrected himself. [1]

If you're saying he got
​ ​
other things wrong, i
​t would be​
better to show us
​ where.​


For example, in your 29 February 2016 email to James, you wrote that James
had "said publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a
Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm fine
with it. Go back and read our exchange. There's just now [sic] way to get
that from what I said ..."

It would help if you would publish the October 2015 exchange so that we can
judge it for ourselves. James has published his 7 October email to the
Board. [2]

Also, please point to where James said publicly that you more or less said
you were fine with building a Google-competing search engine. I don't
recall him saying anything like that. (If he had, someone would have asked
for more information about your statement, and I don't recall anyone asking
that either.)

Sarah

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees&type=revision&diff=15396717&oldid=15396673
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Chris Sherlock]

Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 6:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> ​Kevin,
> 
> You've been touting your experience on Boards in giving advice, and I have
> some experience there myself, so let's think of ​it in those Real World
> terms:
> 
> Regardless of what anyone's personal opinion on what may or may not be
> confidential, what may or may not be an insult or personal attack, what may
> or may not be etc., there is a very real legal shield of confidentiality in
> place not just for this board, but for any semi-professional organization
> that exists because personal opinion does not matter in the eyes of the law.
> 
> ​Multiple people are asking why James was removed. The answer has been
> given: the Board felt that they were unable to work with James, and due to
> the privacy of Board work, nothing can be disclosed further. While this
> answer is frustrating in a movement where we demand transparency for trust
> and collaboration (as we should), for Jimmy or anyone else to comment
> further would be - as an understatement - a poor decision, and one I'm sure
> Counsel would drop their jaw over, if not outright resign their position.
> 
> If you were in the same position, you'd do the exact same thing. If you
> didn't, you'd be opening up a hole for a lawsuit that you can drive a truck
> through. And that lawsuit and hole, friends, is what will be the death of
> the Wikimedia Foundation. Not this.

And yet Keenan, Jimmy has indeed commented further and has further stated on 
numerous occasions that he would like transparency, and is working with the 
Board to release emails and provide a fuller explanation of their actions to 
remove James. 

So when you talk about a shield of confidentiality for the Board, then if this 
is the case then Jimmy's actions in communicating with a non-board member 
(Pete) seems to put Jimmy in a very awkward position if he agrees with your 
statement that "for Jimmy or anyone else to comment further would be - as an 
understatement - a poor decision, and one I'm sure Counsel would drop their jaw 
over, if not outright resign their position." Or the very public utterances by 
Jimmy, not cleared by counsel, that he is a liar.

Just remember here that Jimmy sent that email unsolicited to Peter. It is not 
Jimmy I feel for here, but Peter. Peter gets an email that shocks him, and he 
feels is unacceptable and manipulative, possibly even defamatory. He responds 
to Jimmy telling him that he is not a mediator. Jimmy then makes comments on 
the list stating that he is in private communications with James to work 
through issues, to which I personally believed was an excellent and 
constructive thing for him to do. Yet we now see what sort of communication he 
is having with James: insults and denigration, and what looks like attempts to 
manipulate and inflame James.

If anything, that's incredibly unfair to James. On the one hand Jimmy can say 
to everyone that hand on heart he is working through things with James *in 
private*, and yet by doing so he can say whatever he wants to James and should 
James reveal their correspondence then he, and others like yourself, can claim 
that private communications were violated. Thus Jimmy can say what he wants 
with complete impunity, and at the same time appear to the wider community to 
be making good faith attempts at reconciling with James.

If I were in James' shoes, I would cease all communications with such a person 
and request a formal, third party, professions mediator. I would also advise 
Jimmy that any future communications that do not satisfy this condition can no 
longer be considered private and may well be publicised.

Jimmy: you need to stop calling, or even implying or suggesting James is a 
liar. I am not a lawyer, but I feel you are very lucky in many ways that you 
don't live in the UK, because I feel James would be well within his rights to 
sue for defamation from some of the things you have stated. I'm not sure if he 
would have grounds, or even much of a chance of winning, a defamation suit in 
the U.S. but I suspect he could try should he want to.

The bottom line is that a professional mediator probably now needs to get 
involved. If the WMF is unwilling to fund or provide one, then this issue is 
not going away. I suspect that regardless, James will campaign to be elected 
for the next available Board on a platform of making the Board's actions more 
transparent and accountable. The Board will be in a position, should he win, of 
not accepting the nomination or will need to allow him on the Board - and this 
time, should he be removed again the uproar will be extremely damaging to the 
WMF. The Board, in my view, has no one to blame but themselves for allowing 
this to occur.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Thomas Morton]

The rights and wrongs of this dispute aside (and, crikey, I really have not
idea who is in the right at this point), and putting aside the right/wrong
of releasing the email (I tend to side with Erik):

This is the form of language that e.g. men use to dismiss women as
"emotional".

It's vile and judgemental.

It poses theories that James is either a liar, mentally ill or just so
angry he can't think straight.

It is not okay to say things like this, even in private. The effect of
words like this can be damaging in the least.

As a movement we should not accept this.

Jimmy, whilst you may not have explicitly meant these words in the way they
are being read, you need to perhaps step back and think about the impact of
what you have written here.

Tom

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 at 00:56 Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>
> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>
> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
> response to this list message of mine:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> -- Forwarded message --
>
> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>
> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>
> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>
> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>
>
> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>
> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>
> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
> one.
>
> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
> don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that
> are clearly not true.
>
> Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored
> your perceptions on certain details.
>
> As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said
> publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a
> Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm
> fine with it. Go back and read our exchange. There's just now way to
> get that from what I said - Indeed, I specifically said that we are NOT
> building a Google-competing search engine, and explained the much lower
> and much less complex ambition of improving search and discovery.
>
> As another example, you published a timeline starting with Wikia Search.
> It's really hard for me to interpret that in any other way than to try
> to lead people down the path of the conspiracy theorists that I had a
> pet project to compete with Google which led to a secret project to
> biuld a search engine, etc. etc. You know as well as I do that's a
> false narrative, so it's very hard for me to charitably interpret that.
>
> Anyway these are the kinds of things that I struggle with.
> ___
> 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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Craig Franklin]

A few days ago I asked what it was that we as the community could do to
enhance transparency within the Foundation.  This was not what I had in
mind.  Why would Jimmy or anyone else in a position of authority at the WMF
seek to engage with those making criticisms when they'll be subject to acts
like this; private emails posted without permission and shorn of context?
I'm sure that Jimmy will think twice next time before trying to explain his
thinking or give information, and who could blame him?  There might be a
line where it is acceptable to publicise an email without consent (say, if
Jimmy had threatened to punch James in the nose), but IMHO even though
Jimmy comes off as a bit of a jerk in this one, it falls far short of that
line.

I know Pete that you meant well with your actions, but I fear that you may
actually have done quite a bit of damage.

Cheers,
Craig

On 11 March 2016 at 08:24, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I carefully considered whether to publish this email
> > before doing so. I'm confident I'm on solid ethical ground (i.e., didn't
> > violate anyone's rights), and I'm pretty sure the impact on Wikimedia
> will
> > be positive in the end as well.
>
>
> ​It's hard to argue with this statement one way or the other (when you are
> sure, but you cannot prove.) From experience we have seen that Wikimedia is
> a big
> ​ and distributed​
> Movement and the impact of such actions on the Movement is unlikely to be
> noticeable
> ​.​
>
> ​
>
> Specifics about my choice to release the email below:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :
> > >
> > > > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> > > > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> > > > interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what
> it's
> > > > worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing
> > it.)
> >
>
> ​It is problematic that you have checked with James but not Jimmy prior to
> publishing this email. The content of the email does not justify this
> action for me.
>
>
> > Erik,
> >
> > So the "private channel" you mention has never existed between Jimmy
> Wales
> > and myself. There has never been an agreement, either explicit or
> implied,
> > between us about whether our communications are private.
>
>
> There are norms that people follow in online communications. It is expected
> that you check with the sender of the email before publishing his/her
> email. People expect private conversations to stay private, and the
> definition of a private conversation is not complicated in most of the
> people's minds: if a conversation doesn't happen in a public channel, it's
> considered private.
>
> Where I do have a healthy line of communication with someone, I agree with
> > you.
>
>
> ​If you see that you don't have a healthy line of communication with Jimmy,
> you may want to consider not communicating with him at all. Initiating
> and/or participating in conversations about someone when you cannot have a
> healthy conversation with that person won't be beneficial. You will end up
> being in a position that you cannot improve things between the two of you,
> but you will have extra information that you will feel burdened to share
> with others.
>
> I hope you think about what you did here, and you decide to take a
> different course of action in the future.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> --
> ​​Leila Zia
> Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ​
>
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Pete Forsyth
> > Date: Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: A conversation?
> > To: Jimmy Wales, James Heilman
> >
> >
> > Jimmy, thanks for following up -- and James, thanks for alerting me of
> this
> > (it went to an old email address I no longer check. Good reminder
> though, I
> > am putting an auto-reply on there.)
> >
> > I see that we have three things under discussion, and I want to reiterate
> > that I strongly urge the first:
> >
> >1. JW and JMH have a private conversation with the support of an
> >independent, skilled facilitator
> >2. JW and JMH have a truly one-on-one conversation
> >3. JW and JMH have a conversation with PF as informal facilitator
> >
> > I appreciate being looped in here, but I want to say very clearly: I
> don't
> > have the professional skills to serve as a facilitator here, even if I
> did
> > I am too involved to do it well, and I also don't really have the
> > bandwidth. However, I'm sure the WMF's HR department could refer you to
> > some excellent people. (I could give referrals, but I'm sure the HR
> > department is better equipped for that.) I think that the value of
> > professional facilitation/mediation/ombuds/whatever is well known, so I
> > won't go into the details of why I think this 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Leila Zia]

Hi Pete,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> I carefully considered whether to publish this email
> before doing so. I'm confident I'm on solid ethical ground (i.e., didn't
> violate anyone's rights), and I'm pretty sure the impact on Wikimedia will
> be positive in the end as well.


​It's hard to argue with this statement one way or the other (when you are
sure, but you cannot prove.) From experience we have seen that Wikimedia is
a big
​ and distributed​
Movement and the impact of such actions on the Movement is unlikely to be
noticeable
​.​

​

Specifics about my choice to release the email below:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :
> >
> > > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> > > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> > > interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> > > worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing
> it.)
>

​It is problematic that you have checked with James but not Jimmy prior to
publishing this email. The content of the email does not justify this
action for me.


> Erik,
>
> So the "private channel" you mention has never existed between Jimmy Wales
> and myself. There has never been an agreement, either explicit or implied,
> between us about whether our communications are private.


There are norms that people follow in online communications. It is expected
that you check with the sender of the email before publishing his/her
email. People expect private conversations to stay private, and the
definition of a private conversation is not complicated in most of the
people's minds: if a conversation doesn't happen in a public channel, it's
considered private.

Where I do have a healthy line of communication with someone, I agree with
> you.


​If you see that you don't have a healthy line of communication with Jimmy,
you may want to consider not communicating with him at all. Initiating
and/or participating in conversations about someone when you cannot have a
healthy conversation with that person won't be beneficial. You will end up
being in a position that you cannot improve things between the two of you,
but you will have extra information that you will feel burdened to share
with others.

I hope you think about what you did here, and you decide to take a
different course of action in the future.

Best,
Leila

--
​​Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
​

>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Pete Forsyth
> Date: Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:49 AM
> Subject: Re: A conversation?
> To: Jimmy Wales, James Heilman
>
>
> Jimmy, thanks for following up -- and James, thanks for alerting me of this
> (it went to an old email address I no longer check. Good reminder though, I
> am putting an auto-reply on there.)
>
> I see that we have three things under discussion, and I want to reiterate
> that I strongly urge the first:
>
>1. JW and JMH have a private conversation with the support of an
>independent, skilled facilitator
>2. JW and JMH have a truly one-on-one conversation
>3. JW and JMH have a conversation with PF as informal facilitator
>
> I appreciate being looped in here, but I want to say very clearly: I don't
> have the professional skills to serve as a facilitator here, even if I did
> I am too involved to do it well, and I also don't really have the
> bandwidth. However, I'm sure the WMF's HR department could refer you to
> some excellent people. (I could give referrals, but I'm sure the HR
> department is better equipped for that.) I think that the value of
> professional facilitation/mediation/ombuds/whatever is well known, so I
> won't go into the details of why I think this is a good idea unless asked.
>
> In the meantime, I would very strongly urge you, Jimmy, to cease making
> speculative statements about James' honesty or state of mind. James is
> probably much less volatile than me, but personally I would probably freak
> out if somebody was saying stuff like that about me, either publicly or
> privately. It's highly inflammatory.
>
> I would also request that you address (publicly, I hope) my main question
> about your interpretation of the board vote about "discussing long term
> strategy" as evidence of James' dishonesty. I think that is a point you
> could, and should, walk back without much drama. I think it's safe to say
> that it's highly obvious that you two agree about what constitutes "long
> term strategy," and that's fine -- but the fact that it's become a
> referendum on somebody's integrity is not, in my view, fine at all. I think
> it would help things a great deal if you could publicly acknowledge that
> point.
>
> I'll leave the other points to be dealt with between you, ideally with
> professional support. I really can't play the mediator role here.
>
> -Pete
> ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Kevin Gorman]

Keegan,

Jimmy has attacked James on a personal level in public multiple times, and
sent frankly confusing private emails to multiple people off-list.  There
is no general 'legal shield of confidentiality' surrounding organizations
in general.  Sometimes employees are forbidden from making information
public due to NDA's, etc.  I've never heard of a board member being asked
to sign an NDA regarding information of the sort apparently contained in
the email.  If the particular email in question is a reasonable email,
it'll silence a lot of the debate around this issue; if it's not, it'll
bring up a valid question and debate as whether or not one of
our fiduciaries is capable of carrying out his duties.

When Jimmy has already defamed James publicly, no counsel in their right
mind would have an issue with the publication of private emails that show
Jimmy behaving in a reasonable manner towards James.  As it stands, there
is more potential damage to WMF if the email in question is *not* released
than if it is, assming it is reasonable - although I have no doubt that
James would not take legal action, when you combine Jimmy's public
statements with the fact that James is a doctor, a profession where
confidentiality is paramount, it starts to look an awful lot like
defamation per se.  Besides the internal and external brand damage caused
by Jimmy's actions, you don't want to be in a situation where it looks like
one board member is literally commiting defamation per se against a former
remember removed for "cause."

BTW: besides there being no general "legal shield of confidentiality"
around organizations or boards, any lawyer worth his salt will, accurately,
tell the board members he's advising that unless there is a separate legal
basis for confidentiality (like an NDA signed on a grant,) that each
individual trustee is positively obligated to release information about
their organization or obtained from board meetings if they believe that
doing so is in the best interests of the organization.  Releases of
information should normally be coordinated with other trustees and with
comms staff, but if you end up in a situation where you disagree with the
rest of the board about whether or not it's in the best interests of an
organization to release information, there's not a separate legal basis for
confidentiality (and there normally isn't,) and you feel that releasing the
information is going to cause more benefit (or avert more harm) to the
organization than whatever damage it may do to the cohesiveness of the
board, you are obligated to release that information.

But that is pretty irrelevant when we're not dealing with issues that
really deal with the board as a whole, just an individual email that
doesn't contain confidential information between two board members.  Jimmy
has no legal obligation to keep it confidential, or to seek the permission
of the rest of the board to release it.  Neither does James - he could
release it this second if he decided to, but values privacy enough that
instead of doing so he's asking Jimmy to follow through with his promise of
radical transparency.


Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> > Jimmy, given the fact that James has requested you release it combined
> with
> > the fact that it contains no confidential information, please release the
> > particular email James requested you release.  You've said that you would
> > release it when you received permission from the board, but it was a
> > private communication between James and you that did not contain any
> > confidential information.  The combination of private emails from you to
> > Pete, me, and I suspect the email James refers to, combined with your
> > public statements, makes me honestly have serious doubts about your
> ability
> > to place the interests of the WMF above your personal interests,
> something
> > your position requires you do.
> >
> > I'm expecting no bombshells in the email - I imagine it's just insulting
> or
> > untrue language directed at James - but you can't keep claiming to be an
> > advocate of radical transparency while refusing to release emails that
> > don't contain confidential information that shine light on an issue of
> > public contention.  In three seconds, you could demonstrate that my
> > concerns are unfounded and that your email was reasonable, and with a
> > little more you could demonstrate that there were defensible reasons for
> > removing James in the first place.
> >
>
> ​Kevin,
>
> You've been touting your experience on Boards in giving advice, and I have
> some experience there myself, so let's think of ​it in those Real World
> terms:
>
> Regardless of what anyone's personal opinion on what may or may not be
> confidential, what may or may not be an insult or personal attack, what may
> or may not be etc., there is a very real legal shield of confidentiality in
> place 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Jimmy, given the fact that James has requested you release it combined with
> the fact that it contains no confidential information, please release the
> particular email James requested you release.  You've said that you would
> release it when you received permission from the board, but it was a
> private communication between James and you that did not contain any
> confidential information.  The combination of private emails from you to
> Pete, me, and I suspect the email James refers to, combined with your
> public statements, makes me honestly have serious doubts about your ability
> to place the interests of the WMF above your personal interests, something
> your position requires you do.
>
> I'm expecting no bombshells in the email - I imagine it's just insulting or
> untrue language directed at James - but you can't keep claiming to be an
> advocate of radical transparency while refusing to release emails that
> don't contain confidential information that shine light on an issue of
> public contention.  In three seconds, you could demonstrate that my
> concerns are unfounded and that your email was reasonable, and with a
> little more you could demonstrate that there were defensible reasons for
> removing James in the first place.
>

​Kevin,

You've been touting your experience on Boards in giving advice, and I have
some experience there myself, so let's think of ​it in those Real World
terms:

Regardless of what anyone's personal opinion on what may or may not be
confidential, what may or may not be an insult or personal attack, what may
or may not be etc., there is a very real legal shield of confidentiality in
place not just for this board, but for any semi-professional organization
that exists because personal opinion does not matter in the eyes of the law.

​Multiple people are asking why James was removed. The answer has been
given: the Board felt that they were unable to work with James, and due to
the privacy of Board work, nothing can be disclosed further. While this
answer is frustrating in a movement where we demand transparency for trust
and collaboration (as we should), for Jimmy or anyone else to comment
further would be - as an understatement - a poor decision, and one I'm sure
Counsel would drop their jaw over, if not outright resign their position.

If you were in the same position, you'd do the exact same thing. If you
didn't, you'd be opening up a hole for a lawsuit that you can drive a truck
through. And that lawsuit and hole, friends, is what will be the death of
the Wikimedia Foundation. Not this.


-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Kevin Gorman]

Jimmy, given the fact that James has requested you release it combined with
the fact that it contains no confidential information, please release the
particular email James requested you release.  You've said that you would
release it when you received permission from the board, but it was a
private communication between James and you that did not contain any
confidential information.  The combination of private emails from you to
Pete, me, and I suspect the email James refers to, combined with your
public statements, makes me honestly have serious doubts about your ability
to place the interests of the WMF above your personal interests, something
your position requires you do.

I'm expecting no bombshells in the email - I imagine it's just insulting or
untrue language directed at James - but you can't keep claiming to be an
advocate of radical transparency while refusing to release emails that
don't contain confidential information that shine light on an issue of
public contention.  In three seconds, you could demonstrate that my
concerns are unfounded and that your email was reasonable, and with a
little more you could demonstrate that there were defensible reasons for
removing James in the first place.


Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Manipulative behavior thrives in an environment where a person can say
> different things to different audiences, and can speak freely with the
> expectation they will not be held accountable for their words.
>
> Erik, thank you for articulating your views. As for my own actions, you
> have either made some incorrect assumptions about the background, or you
> operate on a set of principles that I don't entirely share. I'm pretty sure
> it's the former. I carefully considered whether to publish this email
> before doing so. I'm confident I'm on solid ethical ground (i.e., didn't
> violate anyone's rights), and I'm pretty sure the impact on Wikimedia will
> be positive in the end as well. Jimmy Wales sending this email, in my view,
> tends to damage our project. It's worthwhile for those who care about
> Wikimedia's future to know.
>
> I agree very much with what you said in reply to SarahSV. You present a
> very useful overview of how things could or should go in the future. Thank
> you for that.
>
> Specifics about my choice to release the email below:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :
> >
> > > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> > > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> > > interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> > > worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing
> it.)
> >
> > Pete, regardless of Jimmy's words in this email, like others, I fail
> > to see how it's okay to share a private email to this list. I can
> > think of a few instances where this might be ethically defensible --
> > like actual fraud being committed -- but this is not one of them. It's
> > totally fair for people to ask Jimmy to clear the air on stuff
> > himself, but this crosses the line, at least from my point of view.
> >
> > This comes down to giving a person you're corresponding with an
> > honest, open channel by which they can apologize, clarify, and make
> > things right. By violating that private channel you're making it
> > implicitly impossible to have that kind of conversation.
> >
> > Meatball Wiki, as you know, has some wise words on this kind of stuff.
> > http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForgiveAndForget is a good page to
> > remember.
> >
> > And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> > arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> > But this isn't how we should move forward. Criticizing people's
> > actions is fair game, even calling for resignation or other types of
> > structural and organizational change. This kind of picking out of
> > lines from private emails ought _not_ to be, in my view.
> >
> > Erik
> >
>
> Erik,
>
> Jimmy Wales and I have never had a working relationship, or an ongoing
> email correspondence. I'd guess we've exchanged under a dozen emails since
> 2008 or so, and spoken in person fewer times than that. I cannot think of a
> single example of an exchange where we came to an agreement. The much more
> common theme is that, the moment I express any kind of disagreement, he
> vanishes without a word.
>
> So the "private channel" you mention has never existed between Jimmy Wales
> and myself. There has never been an agreement, either explicit or implied,
> between us about whether our communications are private. Given our past
> interactions, if he were to request of me that I keep our communications
> private, I would refuse without hesitation.
>
> Where I do have a healthy line of communication with someone, I agree with
> you. It would take a very high bar (like fraud) for me

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Pete Forsyth]

Manipulative behavior thrives in an environment where a person can say
different things to different audiences, and can speak freely with the
expectation they will not be held accountable for their words.

Erik, thank you for articulating your views. As for my own actions, you
have either made some incorrect assumptions about the background, or you
operate on a set of principles that I don't entirely share. I'm pretty sure
it's the former. I carefully considered whether to publish this email
before doing so. I'm confident I'm on solid ethical ground (i.e., didn't
violate anyone's rights), and I'm pretty sure the impact on Wikimedia will
be positive in the end as well. Jimmy Wales sending this email, in my view,
tends to damage our project. It's worthwhile for those who care about
Wikimedia's future to know.

I agree very much with what you said in reply to SarahSV. You present a
very useful overview of how things could or should go in the future. Thank
you for that.

Specifics about my choice to release the email below:

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :
>
> > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> > interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> > worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>
> Pete, regardless of Jimmy's words in this email, like others, I fail
> to see how it's okay to share a private email to this list. I can
> think of a few instances where this might be ethically defensible --
> like actual fraud being committed -- but this is not one of them. It's
> totally fair for people to ask Jimmy to clear the air on stuff
> himself, but this crosses the line, at least from my point of view.
>
> This comes down to giving a person you're corresponding with an
> honest, open channel by which they can apologize, clarify, and make
> things right. By violating that private channel you're making it
> implicitly impossible to have that kind of conversation.
>
> Meatball Wiki, as you know, has some wise words on this kind of stuff.
> http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForgiveAndForget is a good page to
> remember.
>
> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward. Criticizing people's
> actions is fair game, even calling for resignation or other types of
> structural and organizational change. This kind of picking out of
> lines from private emails ought _not_ to be, in my view.
>
> Erik
>

Erik,

Jimmy Wales and I have never had a working relationship, or an ongoing
email correspondence. I'd guess we've exchanged under a dozen emails since
2008 or so, and spoken in person fewer times than that. I cannot think of a
single example of an exchange where we came to an agreement. The much more
common theme is that, the moment I express any kind of disagreement, he
vanishes without a word.

So the "private channel" you mention has never existed between Jimmy Wales
and myself. There has never been an agreement, either explicit or implied,
between us about whether our communications are private. Given our past
interactions, if he were to request of me that I keep our communications
private, I would refuse without hesitation.

Where I do have a healthy line of communication with someone, I agree with
you. It would take a very high bar (like fraud) for me to release such
communications publicly. We would simply work through any differences
together. I of course have this kind of communication all the time, as you
know. This situation is nothing like that, though. Jimmy and I have no such
relationship. And the bar is, indeed, pretty high: I read this as
manipulative communication, at odds with Jimmy's publicly expressed goals,
about things that impact the future of Wikimedia.

I did reply to Jimmy's email, and since my role is apparently something
people are interested in, I'm including my reply below. You'll see that I
was suggesting some of the same things you do, Erik. Jimmy never replied,
though.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


-- Forwarded message --
From: Pete Forsyth
Date: Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: A conversation?
To: Jimmy Wales, James Heilman


Jimmy, thanks for following up -- and James, thanks for alerting me of this
(it went to an old email address I no longer check. Good reminder though, I
am putting an auto-reply on there.)

I see that we have three things under discussion, and I want to reiterate
that I strongly urge the first:

   1. JW and JMH have a private conversation with the support of an
   independent, skilled facilitator
   2. JW and JMH have a truly one-on-one conversation
   3. JW and JMH have a conversation with PF as informal facilitator

I appreciate being looped in here, but I want to say very clearly: I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[George Herbert]

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:01 AM, jimmy wales  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal 
> effects of lack of transparency and openness.  Assuming I and other board 
> members who continue to press for full openness about the James situation  
> are eventually successful this will all become more clear.

This situation - the lack of full openness and an OK for everyone to publicly 
discuss what they saw and believed happening - is incredibly damaging to the 
Foundation and movement by now.

The tension expressed with Board needs to keep some things confidential is 
real.  But...

I would go so far as to state that it appears to me. that Board members' 
fiduciary duty to the Foundation now argues for open disclosure, and is clearly 
and straightforwardly at odds with the Boards' current secrecy.

I understand that opinions and dynamics within the board are important, but 
your individual responsibilities are now becoming directly relevant.  I urge 
the board to resolve your internal obstacles to the openness swiftly.  If you 
cannot do so, your fiduciary duty must guide you.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone


___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[rupert THURNER]

On Mar 10, 2016 07:19, "Erik Moeller"  wrote:
>
> 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :
>
> > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> > interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> > worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>
> Pete, regardless of Jimmy's words in this email, like others, I fail
> to see how it's okay to share a private email to this list. I can
> think of a few instances where this might be ethically defensible --
> like actual fraud being committed -- but this is not one of them. It's
> totally fair for people to ask Jimmy to clear the air on stuff
> himself, but this crosses the line, at least from my point of view.
>
> This comes down to giving a person you're corresponding with an
> honest, open channel by which they can apologize, clarify, and make
> things right. By violating that private channel you're making it
> implicitly impossible to have that kind of conversation.

I share this opinion.

Rupert
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[jytdog]

Jimmy, a lot of us are bewildered and are finding it very hard to
understand, why you continue to spin and distract.  I do understand that
your current strategy is to pin a bunch of this on Damon. That is not going
to fly.

You are not accountable to anyone, Jimmy.  That you can write things like
what you write below to this whole list, is a testament to that.  That is
not good for anyone.  Not you, and not the movement.

What you apparently cannot see in your email to James, is the arrogance in
it, and that the certainty that you are correct and James is incorrect,
dressed in nice clothes.  Wikipedia is a laboratory of human behavior,
where all too often we all watch people flounder and persist in IDHT
behavior.  You apparently cannot see how transparent your behavior is.

I cannot understand why you continue digging.

Outside the sea of perception - here are three facts -  both you and
Patricio lost a boatload of credibility by misrepresenting the board's
stance in November. That was incredibly damaging to the movement.  None of
you have done anything in public to address that.

Here is my perception - your refusal in particular to deal in a
straightforward manner with James' dismissal and the whole KE debacle has
further made anything you say hard for me to believe.  I believe this is
true for a growing number of people.

My preference would be that you all pivot, disclose what has gone on over
the last year or so, and apologize.  I do not see that anywhere on the
horizon.

Why?  It is transparent to me, that it is because neither you nor the board
is accountable to anyone.  You all can behave as you did, and talk now
about that as you are talking now, and ... nothing happens.  Asking you to
be straightforward, has no effect.

I intend to work with others to make a significant number of board seats
elected.  This is coming down to a matter of power; we cannot rely on
values.



On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

> On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> > I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James.  At
> > the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James
> > another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch.  If we're
> > past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be
> > happy to know that after three months of talking about and at each
> > other, you guys _sincerely_ tried talking to each other.
>
> I agree completely.  My email, which seems so horrifying to a few
> people, was meant exactly as that.  The truth is, I am genuinely
> bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things
> that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.
>
> There is nothing horrible about encouraging him to think about whether
> emotion has blinded him.  When so many other people who know the facts
> are telling you that you have it wrong, it's a good idea to pause and
> reflect.
>
> And yes, it would have been more charitable and kind to include other
> options in that email.  I wrote it as an opening to a dialogue, not as a
> formal statement of position to be analyzed in public.  I invite people
> to think whether Pete's publishing of it was done in the interests of
> healing and harmony, rather than to further inflame and create drama.
>
> There's a lot more to respond to on wikimedia-l, and I may do so this
> weekend.  But there's one thing that is worth saying quite strongly:
> There was never a project at the Wikimedia Foundation to build a search
> engine to compete with Google.  This has been confirmed by engineers
> working in that area.  I have been very straightforward in telling
> people what I know about it, and I have not seen any evidence that the
> people who have told me what happened have lied to me about that.
>
> What there was, and this has become clear only recently, was a proposal
> by Damon, passed around with great cloak-and-dagger, with his ideas
> about how we could and should do that.  Those ideas never got traction
> and never made it to the board level.  What was proposed to the board
> was an investment in internal search and discovery.
>
> There's also the side issue - and I don't mean it is unimportant, I mean
> it is a side issue - of the language in the Knight Foundation some of
> which apparently survived from Damon's early brainstorms.  I am not
> happy about that language, but my understanding is that the Knight
> Foundation is fine, that they understood and understand that the
> deliverables in the grant - which is what matters - are modest and
> reasonable as an exploration of what we should do next in this area.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Anthony Cole]

Jimmy, your ymail is still going into my gmail spam.

It's time you released that email Sarah reminded you about, above.

I agree with Oliver's characterisation of your tone in that email to Peter
and James. I'm very disappointed to see Erik putting down Pete for exposing
the gargoyle behind the mask, rather than nailing you for the insulting
salvo you launched at James, in secret, where you thought no one would ever
know; and suggesting we all just calm down and leave the resolution to the
chair and a professional mediator. As if.

Per others above and me elsewhere, [1] please vacate the "founder's seat"
now, and run for a community seat at the next community selection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_202#Your_role_as_spokesperson_for_the_Wikimedia_movement

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke 
wrote:

> ...this is about that mail of yours to James that was going to be
> published, right?
>
> On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> > effects of lack of transparency and openness.  Assuming I and other board
> > members who continue to press for full openness about the James situation
> >  are eventually successful this will all become more clear.
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Samsung device
> >
> >  Original message 
> > From: George Herbert 
> > Date: 2016/03/10  9:49 AM  (GMT+00:00)
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales 
> > wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Those ideas never got traction
> > > and never made it to the board level. ...
> >
> > I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in
> > the various half-explanations that it did, to James, who either got
> mangled
> > explanations and assumed worse or heard worse from someone incorrectly.
> > Thence to mistrust.
> >
> > Assuming nobody is evil or insane, we have clear evidence and now open
> > admissions of communications breakdowns at several levels and confused,
> > contradictory explanations about who thought what secrecy was required
> and
> > why.
> >
> > It seems like those fed upon each other into misunderstandings and
> > mistrust.
> >
> > Have you not considered that lack of transparency and openness would have
> > the same internal effect as external?
> >
> >
> > George William Herbert
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[jimmy wales]

Yes.  When I can publish I will.


Sent from my Samsung device

 Original message 
From: Michel Vuijlsteke  
Date: 2016/03/10  10:05 AM  (GMT+00:00) 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List  
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation? 

...this is about that mail of yours to James that was going to be
published, right?

On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales  wrote:

>
>
> Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> effects of lack of transparency and openness.  Assuming I and other board
> members who continue to press for full openness about the James situation
>  are eventually successful this will all become more clear.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
>  Original message 
> From: George Herbert 
> Date: 2016/03/10  9:49 AM  (GMT+00:00)
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
> > ...
> > Those ideas never got traction
> > and never made it to the board level. ...
>
> I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in
> the various half-explanations that it did, to James, who either got mangled
> explanations and assumed worse or heard worse from someone incorrectly.
> Thence to mistrust.
>
> Assuming nobody is evil or insane, we have clear evidence and now open
> admissions of communications breakdowns at several levels and confused,
> contradictory explanations about who thought what secrecy was required and
> why.
>
> It seems like those fed upon each other into misunderstandings and
> mistrust.
>
> Have you not considered that lack of transparency and openness would have
> the same internal effect as external?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

...this is about that mail of yours to James that was going to be
published, right?

On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales  wrote:

>
>
> Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> effects of lack of transparency and openness.  Assuming I and other board
> members who continue to press for full openness about the James situation
>  are eventually successful this will all become more clear.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
>  Original message 
> From: George Herbert 
> Date: 2016/03/10  9:49 AM  (GMT+00:00)
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
> > ...
> > Those ideas never got traction
> > and never made it to the board level. ...
>
> I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in
> the various half-explanations that it did, to James, who either got mangled
> explanations and assumed worse or heard worse from someone incorrectly.
> Thence to mistrust.
>
> Assuming nobody is evil or insane, we have clear evidence and now open
> admissions of communications breakdowns at several levels and confused,
> contradictory explanations about who thought what secrecy was required and
> why.
>
> It seems like those fed upon each other into misunderstandings and
> mistrust.
>
> Have you not considered that lack of transparency and openness would have
> the same internal effect as external?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[jimmy wales]

Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal effects 
of lack of transparency and openness.  Assuming I and other board members who 
continue to press for full openness about the James situation  are eventually 
successful this will all become more clear.


Sent from my Samsung device

 Original message 
From: George Herbert  
Date: 2016/03/10  9:49 AM  (GMT+00:00) 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List  
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation? 





> On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> ...
> Those ideas never got traction
> and never made it to the board level. ...

I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in the 
various half-explanations that it did, to James, who either got mangled 
explanations and assumed worse or heard worse from someone incorrectly.  Thence 
to mistrust.

Assuming nobody is evil or insane, we have clear evidence and now open 
admissions of communications breakdowns at several levels and confused, 
contradictory explanations about who thought what secrecy was required and why.

It seems like those fed upon each other into misunderstandings and mistrust.

Have you not considered that lack of transparency and openness would have the 
same internal effect as external?
 

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[George Herbert]

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> ...
> Those ideas never got traction
> and never made it to the board level. ...

I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in the 
various half-explanations that it did, to James, who either got mangled 
explanations and assumed worse or heard worse from someone incorrectly.  Thence 
to mistrust.

Assuming nobody is evil or insane, we have clear evidence and now open 
admissions of communications breakdowns at several levels and confused, 
contradictory explanations about who thought what secrecy was required and why.

It seems like those fed upon each other into misunderstandings and mistrust.

Have you not considered that lack of transparency and openness would have the 
same internal effect as external?
 

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James.  At
> the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James
> another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch.  If we're
> past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be
> happy to know that after three months of talking about and at each
> other, you guys _sincerely_ tried talking to each other.

I agree completely.  My email, which seems so horrifying to a few
people, was meant exactly as that.  The truth is, I am genuinely
bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things
that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.

There is nothing horrible about encouraging him to think about whether
emotion has blinded him.  When so many other people who know the facts
are telling you that you have it wrong, it's a good idea to pause and
reflect.

And yes, it would have been more charitable and kind to include other
options in that email.  I wrote it as an opening to a dialogue, not as a
formal statement of position to be analyzed in public.  I invite people
to think whether Pete's publishing of it was done in the interests of
healing and harmony, rather than to further inflame and create drama.

There's a lot more to respond to on wikimedia-l, and I may do so this
weekend.  But there's one thing that is worth saying quite strongly:
There was never a project at the Wikimedia Foundation to build a search
engine to compete with Google.  This has been confirmed by engineers
working in that area.  I have been very straightforward in telling
people what I know about it, and I have not seen any evidence that the
people who have told me what happened have lied to me about that.

What there was, and this has become clear only recently, was a proposal
by Damon, passed around with great cloak-and-dagger, with his ideas
about how we could and should do that.  Those ideas never got traction
and never made it to the board level.  What was proposed to the board
was an investment in internal search and discovery.

There's also the side issue - and I don't mean it is unimportant, I mean
it is a side issue - of the language in the Knight Foundation some of
which apparently survived from Damon's early brainstorms.  I am not
happy about that language, but my understanding is that the Knight
Foundation is fine, that they understood and understand that the
deliverables in the grant - which is what matters - are modest and
reasonable as an exploration of what we should do next in this area.

--Jimbo

___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-09 23:21 GMT-08:00 SarahSV :

>> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
>> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
>> But this isn't how we should move forward.

> Erik, what do you see as the alternative?

To clarify, I was specifically objecting to the leaked private email,
not to addressing the issues with James' ejection from the Board. I
know James and worked with him especially on the Wikivoyage migration;
I understand well why he is so widely trusted and why this matter has
cut deep wounds.

I would suggest the following.

* I would still ask to give the Board a little time to finalize their
decision regarding the interim ED, which seems imminent. That means
not just announcing, but also some time to provide support and
orientation in that person's first weeks. (E.g., the interim ED will
need to build a relationship with the Board itself.)

* Until then, I suggest focusing on documenting rather than debating.
What Molly did with the timeline is a fine example of "collaborative
journalism" and the Wikimedia community is at its best when it
collects the facts in an NPOV manner. Coordinating this on a single
page can reduce the forest fire nature of this conflict. I strongly
recommend avoiding one-sided leaks of private emails and such for the
reasons I gave.

* Once the Board has a bit of bandwidth, the Chair of the Board
(Patricio) really is the primary person to look to for bringing
closure to this matter. Dealing with issues with current and former
Board members is _precisely_ the kind of thing a Board Chair needs to
demonstrate leadership on, because it can't be done by committee.

* To do this in a manner that's both transparent and consistent with
community norms, I've suggested engaging a professional facilitator.
(I believe Pete has also said so several times.) There could be a
private/public meeting, where there's a private discussion with James
and the facilitator, and a public joint statement that comes out of
this, even if it ends up being "agree to disagree". It's the
facilitator's job that this comes to pass.

* That public bit could lead into a general public discussion with the
Board. I would recommend a metrics meeting style format (video + IRC
backchannel) with a wiki page to submit questions beforehand, and +1
them.

If that plan seems sensible, I would also suggest Jimmy disengage on
the James Heilman matter from here on and leave this issue to the
Board Chair to bring closure to.

Hope that helps. I know this has all been exhausting for lots of
folks, so please take it in the spirit in which it is intended, i.e.
to help bring closure to it in a step-by-step way.

Warmly,
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Benjamin Lees]

I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James.  At
the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James
another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch.  If we're
past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be
happy to know that after three months of talking about and at each
other, you guys _sincerely_ tried talking to each other.

___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward.
>

​Erik, what do you see as the alternative?

There is a pattern here. For example, when James was removed in December,
Jimmy said he was not releasing information about it out of concern for
James.​

He wrote: "a man's reputation is at stake here." [1] "Our choice might have
been to post something blunt and damaging to him ... Remember, a man's
public reputation is at risk here." [2] And "Because a man's reputation is
at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about
James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience." [3]

Those posts were troubling – on a par with someone on the Board making
James feel that he ought to propose accepting the Knight grant, when in
fact he was the one who objected to it. That James proposed it was then
held up as evidence that he wasn't telling the truth about other issues. [4]

Is this the kind of Board we want? How are we to move forward if we're not
allowed to talk about it?

Sarah


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=697333942
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=697407110
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=697407275
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=704228495
​
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:55 AM, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>
> > But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after
> each
> > other.
> >
> > ​Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours
> radical transparency regarding James's removal and surrounding issues. But
> it's now March, and nothing has been released except under pressure or
> thanks to others. The result
> ​has been a huge loss of trust. Trying to stifle discussion will only make
> things worse.
>

​He can favor radical transparency all he wants, that doesn't mean in the
real world role that he currently occupies as a WMF Board of Trustee member
that *he can actually do that*. Airing his private emails as a pressure
tactic to get people to break what is probably legal advice is just absurd
and below board.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
He is (as far as I know) flying coach. It was his own project with his own
money. So what is the point?
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 10 March 2016 at 07:19, Ruslan Takayev  wrote:

> Gerard, et al
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
> > Google is bonkers.
>
>
> I agree totally, but didn't Jimmy once have plans for a Google-killing
> machine with a view to buying himself a new jet?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Ruslan Takayev
> ___
> 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] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each
> other.
>
> ​Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours
radical transparency regarding James's removal and surrounding issues. But
it's now March, and nothing has been released except under pressure or
thanks to others. The result
​has been a huge loss of trust. Trying to stifle discussion will only make
things worse.

Sarah
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Ruslan Takayev]

Gerard, et al

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
> Google is bonkers.


I agree totally, but didn't Jimmy once have plans for a Google-killing
machine with a view to buying himself a new jet?

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :

> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)

Pete, regardless of Jimmy's words in this email, like others, I fail
to see how it's okay to share a private email to this list. I can
think of a few instances where this might be ethically defensible --
like actual fraud being committed -- but this is not one of them. It's
totally fair for people to ask Jimmy to clear the air on stuff
himself, but this crosses the line, at least from my point of view.

This comes down to giving a person you're corresponding with an
honest, open channel by which they can apologize, clarify, and make
things right. By violating that private channel you're making it
implicitly impossible to have that kind of conversation.

Meatball Wiki, as you know, has some wise words on this kind of stuff.
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForgiveAndForget is a good page to
remember.

And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
But this isn't how we should move forward. Criticizing people's
actions is fair game, even calling for resignation or other types of
structural and organizational change. This kind of picking out of
lines from private emails ought _not_ to be, in my view.

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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
Google is bonkers. The mudslinging and power grabbing tone of many of these
messages seriously turn me off. The only thing they accomplish is that
people like myself are moving in their emotions from depressed to furious.

I do not care for all this bullshit. I sat in on a board meeting in
Rotterdam. It was with Jimmy, Angela and Anthere. It is unlikely to be in
any minutes and I only give it as an indication that I have been on the
inside of what is the Wikimedia Foundation for a longer time.  I do not
think that either Jimmy or James is crazy but I do know that when people
get into situation that are crazy that they will become erratic.

At a time I asked Pete pointblanc for his opinion on something that had to
do with the quality of Wikipedia. I provided him with all the arguments how
and why it would benefit Wikipedia and its quality. I asked him for his
opinion. I asked him what could be done about it. The only result I got was
suspicion. What was it that I wanted from him, why was it that I asked him
all this. I did not get an response that indicated to me that Pete was
interested at all in Wikipedia.

Pete may share the emails. My memory is known to be erratic but not in this.

Ask yourself. What is it that we want to achieve. How can we achieve it.
What does it take and who is on board.

The WMF is not a democracy. Intentionally so. There is a structure with a
balance of power for stakeholders. The only stakeholder lacking is
personnel. In an optimal world it is the ED that speaks for them. Clearly
this did not happen recently and, sadly so.

The disgust that I feel for what is happening is resulting in many negative
effects complementary to what has been widely mentioned. I will describe
how it affects me. I feel more and more disconnected from the Wikimedia
crowd. It is involved in things that are interesting from a sociological
point of view but it increasingly detracts from what the real issues should
be. This mailing list is more than enough, I can not stomach more and
consequently I do not frequent Meta anymore. This sadly means that all the
legitimate reasons for frequenting Meta are lost for me as well. Given that
I associate many of the "pundits" with Wikipedia, I increasingly grow
antagonistic towards Wikipedia. This is spite of my wish for Wikipedia to
do better than that it does. In spite of my preparations for a project that
I am pushing. A project where I hope to engage James in a positive and
meaningful way (and yes we have had initial communications).

Ask yourself what do all these "analysis" bring us but distrust? When the
board comes with a way forward, it is dismissed with "everything we
discussed is not heard". GOOD. Why should they? Pundits do not represent
us.Some of them I know, some of them I respect. But PLEASE concentrate on
what we do. It is not the politics and stuff of the WMF. It is sharing the
sum of all knowledge as widely as possible. Our immediate challenge is to
share in what we already have. That takes a much improved search engine,
that argument I have made for years now, Magnus added an important missing
part to it and I am sure that most readers of this list did not get this
far  and have never seen it 
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 10 March 2016 at 05:46, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
> 29.
> > I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>
>
> ​I'm a firm believer in two wrongs not making a right.
>
> This email has zero context aside from what the reader would like to infer,
> as we (the reader) are not the audience.
>
> Publishing this email was just as, if not, more irresponsible than Jimmy
> was in sending it.
>
> Those that wish to continue histrionics, take pause before *you* hit send.​
>
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> 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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html


​I'm a firm believer in two wrongs not making a right.

This email has zero context aside from what the reader would like to infer,
as we (the reader) are not the audience.

Publishing this email was just as, if not, more irresponsible than Jimmy
was in sending it.

Those that wish to continue histrionics, take pause before *you* hit send.​



-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> threats show up in my inbox.


​Me too.
​


> And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
>
>
Nope. I've read worse from you, Oliver.
​


> This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> LessWrong.[1]
>
> No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
>
>
​Many of the active posters write like this to this very public list on a
daily basis, and it is quite hurtful to many people. Much more hurtful than
this private email.

But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each
other.

Brilliant move, you civilized people.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[James Heilman]

There is not much one can say in response to an email such as that. During
the last month many within the community have come to a similar conclusions
as I did back in Oct following seeing the documents surrounding the Knight
Foundation grant.

The decision I had pushed for back in November has now been made. While we
have lost a lot of amazing people at the WMF, greater losses I believe have
been avoided. I would like to thank everyone who stuck through it all and
thank all the staff who raised concerns. I heard them loud and clear.

I think we have the opportunity not only to learn a lot from all of this
but to become stronger as a movement. I believe we need to make a few
changes. We need to remove the ability of the board to remove community
elected members "without cause" and without community involvement. We need
to have a staff representative at the board table. And I believe Jimmy
Wales should stand for community re election (at which I imagine he would
succeed).

I am here because what we do matters. The content we create has a positive
effect on people's lives. And while I do not plan to go anywhere it is
unfortunate that one needs to be so thick skinned within this movement.

James

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:48 PM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Oliver
>
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
> people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
> the community.
>
> IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
> and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
> things.
>
> I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
> trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
> whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
> protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
>
> On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> > Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> > threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> > horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
> >
> > This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> > neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> > detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> > LessWrong.[1]
> >
> > No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> > that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> > in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> > James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> > or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> > with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
> >
> > Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
> > intentionally, and if
> > this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
> > a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
> > founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
> > signed up for them.
> >
> > And if you instead don't understand why this
> > sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
> > you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
> > find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
> > productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
> > you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
> > you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
> > demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
> > a part of.
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> > [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
> > brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
> > people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
> > disagreeing with an idea
> > http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
> >> 29.
> >> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
> >>
> >> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> >> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> >> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> >> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
> >>
> >> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
> >> response to this list message of mine:
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/20

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm really not sure how this relates to this thread. If you're
interested in discussing the decision in 06, there's another thread
for that.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:48 PM, David Emrany  wrote:
> Oliver
>
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
> people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
> the community.
>
> IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
> and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
> things.
>
> I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
> trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
> whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
> protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
>
> On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
>> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
>> threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
>> horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
>>
>> This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
>> neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
>> detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
>> LessWrong.[1]
>>
>> No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
>> that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
>> in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
>> James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
>> or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
>> with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
>>
>> Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
>> intentionally, and if
>> this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
>> a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
>> founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
>> signed up for them.
>>
>> And if you instead don't understand why this
>> sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
>> you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
>> find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
>> productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
>> you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
>> you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
>> demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
>> a part of.
>>
>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
>> [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
>> brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
>> people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
>> disagreeing with an idea
>> http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>>> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
>>> 29.
>>> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>>>
>>> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
>>> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
>>> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
>>> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>>>
>>> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
>>> response to this list message of mine:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>>>
>>> -Pete
>>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message --
>>>
>>> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>>>
>>> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>>>
>>> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>>>
>>> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>>>
>>>
>>> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
>>> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
>>> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
>>> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
>>> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>>>
>>> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
>>> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
>>> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>>>
>>> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
>>> one.
>>>
>>> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
>>> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
>>> don't make sense and which attempt to lead people 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Kevin Gorman]

Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving, intentionally,
and if this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it
in a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a founder.
Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have signed up for
them.

*Unfortunately, I'm going to have to second this pretty loudly.

---
Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:48 PM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Oliver
>
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
> people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
> the community.
>
> IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
> and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
> things.
>
> I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
> trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
> whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
> protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
>
> On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> > Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> > threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> > horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
> >
> > This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> > neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> > detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> > LessWrong.[1]
> >
> > No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> > that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> > in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> > James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> > or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> > with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
> >
> > Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
> > intentionally, and if
> > this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
> > a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
> > founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
> > signed up for them.
> >
> > And if you instead don't understand why this
> > sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
> > you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
> > find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
> > productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
> > you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
> > you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
> > demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
> > a part of.
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> > [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
> > brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
> > people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
> > disagreeing with an idea
> > http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
> >> 29.
> >> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
> >>
> >> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> >> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> >> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> >> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
> >>
> >> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
> >> response to this list message of mine:
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
> >>
> >> -Pete
> >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >>
> >> -- Forwarded message --
> >>
> >> *From: *Jimmy Wales
> >>
> >> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
> >>
> >> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
> >>
> >> *Subject: **A conversation?*
> >>
> >>
> >> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
> >> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
> >> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
> >> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
> >> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
> >>
> >> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
> >> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
> >> line with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[David Emrany]

Oliver

I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
the community.

IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
things.

I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.

David

[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/

On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
>
> This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> LessWrong.[1]
>
> No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
>
> Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
> intentionally, and if
> this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
> a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
> founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
> signed up for them.
>
> And if you instead don't understand why this
> sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
> you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
> find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
> productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
> you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
> you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
> demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
> a part of.
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
> brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
> people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
> disagreeing with an idea
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
>> 29.
>> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>>
>> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
>> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
>> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
>> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>>
>> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
>> response to this list message of mine:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>>
>> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>>
>> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>>
>> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>>
>> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>>
>>
>> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
>> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
>> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
>> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
>> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>>
>> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
>> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
>> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>>
>> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
>> one.
>>
>> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
>> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
>> don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that
>> are clearly not true.
>>
>> Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored
>> your perceptions on certain details.
>>
>> As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said
>> publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a
>> Googl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Oliver Keyes]

I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.

This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
LessWrong.[1]

No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.

Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
intentionally, and if
this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
signed up for them.

And if you instead don't understand why this
sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
a part of.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
disagreeing with an idea
http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>
> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>
> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
> response to this list message of mine:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> -- Forwarded message --
>
> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>
> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>
> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>
> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>
>
> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>
> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>
> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
> one.
>
> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
> don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that
> are clearly not true.
>
> Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored
> your perceptions on certain details.
>
> As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said
> publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a
> Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm
> fine with it. Go back and read our exchange. There's just now way to
> get that from what I said - Indeed, I specifically said that we are NOT
> building a Google-competing search engine, and explained the much lower
> and much less complex ambition of improving search and discovery.
>
> As another example, you published a timeline starting with Wikia Search.
> It's really hard for me to interpret that in any other way than to try
> to lead people down the path of the conspiracy theorists that I had a
> pet project to compete with Google which led to a secret project to
> biuld a search engine, etc. etc. You know as well as I do that's a
> false narrative, so it's very hard for me to charitably interpret that.
>
> Anyway these are the kinds of thing