I appreciate the many constructive comments in this thread. I wish that we knew that the Board was having similar discussions, and that these discussions were transparent.
> I don't think it would be wise to have a total simultaneous Board step-down > though - at least a situation of zero continuity is dangerous. Agreed. My choice of the term "transition plans" was carefully considered. I agree with several of the comments made above in this thread regarding the Board and options for an orderly Board transition in the next several months. Perhaps some of those transitions will involve replacing some of the newer board members with former board members who have valuable experience and who have demonstrated knowledge with how we work in WMF and the Wikimedia community to create positive change. To clarify some thoughts about Lila: For the record, I think I too may have had a part in the selection of Lila for ED. I advocated for someone with private sector performance-management perspective to be brought into WMF. At the time I didn't appreciate that this might create a culture clash with our values and practices regarding transparency, communications, and community participation. I feel like I share part of the blame for my advocacy at the time, which in hindsight should have been more carefully nuanced. Based on nonpublic communications, I believe that Lila generally has good intentions, and I would like her to feel good about things that have gone well while she has been here. For example, the community consultation regarding PC&L, and also the plans for re-imagining grants. We are also seeing some exciting developments in Analytics and revision scoring, the "big English" fundraiser in late 2015 went well, and there seems to be strong community support for WMF taking legal and technical steps to protect our editors and readers from mass surveillance. I have heard allegations that some of the information about the Knight grant as presented to the public were intentionally deceptive. I have *not* seen evidence, in public or private, that yet convinces me that there was any intent to deceive. On the other hand, communications, planning, and transparency regarding the Knight grant were deeply problematic, to the point where WMF Board members and staff seemed to be confused and were themselves uncertain about what the right answers were. Going forward, I believe that the staff of WMF and the larger Wikimedia community would be best served with new leadership in the executive director role. The retention of skilled staff, the relations with donors such as Knight, and the handling of strategic, financial, and product planning in an orderly and transparent manner are all important roles for the ED. I hope that Lila and the Board will ponder the points raised in this thread and many others, as well as the information in this *Signpost *commentary <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report> and in http://mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/. It seems to me that the leadership at WMF simply must change, and that Lila and the Board would act in the best interest of WMF by making transition plans. Pine _______________________________________________ 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>
