While reinstating James Heilman (or rather, appointing him as replacement
of Arnnon - I am assuming this is your suggestion?) may be a decision that
is popular with a significant part of the community, I am uncertain how
productive such a move would be. Especially now there is no more ED, I
don't know if the board would be helped with an internal struggle (which,
given the temperatures around James' removal, is very likely to happen).
Sorry James, I like you a lot as a person, and I appreciate your boldness
and consistent banging on doors - but I suspect your guts will also tell
you that this is true. This is of course a different story if the board
were to come forward themselves that they would /like/ him back on the
board, because of who he is and what he brings (they know what they're
getting themselves into).

I'm afraid that for the time being, James' board membership is best
considered water under the bridge. If we can learn from it, we should
though. Someone suggested on a relevant Facebook thread to organise a
discussion between James and some willing board members to work out what
exactly happened, what were the causes etc. It might be a constructive
conversation if both parties are willing to join, and from that we could
learn lessons for the future. Because no matter how you turn it, if a board
feels the need to remove one of its members, it is a failure of the board
as a body. Because they didn't manage to get a constructive working
relationship with this member. And I hope that the board can learn from
that, and improve its processes.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Comet styles <cometsty...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well the keyword in "trustees" is the word "Trust" and as far as i can
> see James was the ONLY one that was forthcoming with what happened
> back in December, the others decided to keep their mouth shut and let
> it slide which obviously, made it worse and out of control.....The
> community has over the years selected a few BoT members that weren't
> really that good, including some recently but James has been an
> exception if we can get the ONLY Board of Trustee that the community
> TRUSTS back on board, its a win for the community..
>
> It was a really 'sly' move by the BoT to select someone else in his
> place even before the fire died down..so yes, even if the current
> members of the Board do not trust him, WE the community  DO...thats
> all that matters.
>
> On 2/27/16, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email
> > wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.
> >
> > It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right
> > path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only
> > trustee actively and aggressively following his fiduciary duties. A
> > trusteeship can involve an intense time committment, and is a volunteer
> > role; there is no fault, no flaw in a trustee not universally actively
> and
> > aggressively following their fiduciary duties at all time.  But I've been
> > talking with WMF and ex-WMF employees for months before this eruption,
> had
> > a pretty thorough idea of what it was about, and had a pretty solid
> feeling
> > that it was the wrong thing to do even before it happened.
> >
> > James' actions retained valuable Foundation employees that would of
> > otherwise left, and there are yet other valuable Foundation employees
> that
> > would likely have stayed had he not been removed over the issue.  Not all
> > trustees have the available time to be exemplary trustees at all times,
> and
> > sometimes people just make the wrong call - I will readily confess that
> at
> > another organization (~$20m org,) there were times when I both didn't
> have
> > time to dedicate to be an exemplary trustee, and also times when I just
> > made the wrong call.  However, this is a situation where Jame's was
> acting
> > as an exemplar and was removed for it.  That is not intended to denigrate
> > the work of most other trustees, but it's not a good situation either.
> > Removing a community selected trustee who was acting as an exemplar
> > *because* he was acting as an exemplar is not a good thing.  One of the
> > first solid steps towards rebuilding community trust would be reinstating
> > James.
> >
> > ----
> > Kevin Gorman
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all -
> >>
> >> I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
> >> threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an
> informed
> >> observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and
> >> to
> >> a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
> >> unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
> >> members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him
> back
> >> on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
> >> trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
> >> trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
> >>
> >> I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who
> >> was actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that
> if
> >> Dr. James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the
> >> next three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman
> as
> >> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to
> >> him,
> >> he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests
> of
> >> the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >>
> >> And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Kevin Gorman
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
> --
> Cometstyles
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

Reply via email to