Tobias wrote: >James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do >things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also >endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less >of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work >in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the >cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic >and collective voice to the outside. >These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to >the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community >involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh >criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community, >wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and >tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in >turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust. >The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership, >and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with >senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James, >being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open >review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other >board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a >public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps >inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation, >so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from >the board. > >This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion >at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a >grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process >of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what >they perceive is incorrect.
Thank you for taking the time to post this summary. It's very well-written and I think it appropriately captures what most likely happened, given the available evidence. As for action items, I see: * evaluate whether the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws should be changed to make it more difficult (or easier) to remove a Board of Trustees member; * strongly urge the Board of Trustees to be more transparent and communicative, embracing the values that keep our projects running; and * evaluate the process for filling community-selected Board of Trustees seats, perhaps changing the seats to be community-elected. Obligatory reference: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law>! MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
