Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:

(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
(2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
(3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
(4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
(with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source

It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to