Hello, Thanks for the contributions.
I can imagine that it is reasonable * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to work together with a specific board member; * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to publish the reasons for the removal; * that the WMF Board calls the removed board member to be ineligible for future elections. What my problem is, is that the WMF Board takes all these decisions by itself. The WMF Board acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner in one organ. The Dutch would say: The butcher is reviewing his own meat. It becomes easy to criticise such a board. The present situation is unfair to the removed member who is blamed in public without a public information about the reason. The removed board member also can only appeal to the very organ that removed him. The present situation is furthermore a devastating signal to the voters. The removal decreases the value of the community elections and makes all board seats questionable. The ultimate election is made by the WMF Board, not the community, it seems. As solutions I can imagine * to create an arbitration organ for these decisions; or * to let the voters decide whether they want to send the removed board member back to the board. Kind regards Ziko 2016-02-27 20:02 GMT+01:00 Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com>: > Hi all - > > Maria's appointment should be viewed as a replacement to that of Arnnon > Geshuri. I like her, and I think she'd stand a fair chance in a community > election, but she is not and cannot be described as a community selected > trustee at present. It's perfectly possible for boards to have members on > it that don't get along, even of large organizations. I've been a trustee > of a sizable organization and had significant disagreements with at least > one other trustee - more significant than those between Jimmy and James. > The fact that there is animosity between board members isn't a barrier to > having a productive board. It's disingenious, at best, to say that James > was dismissed because he spoke out about the knowledge engine, etc. James > had conversations with employees not related to the knowledge engine, but > related to other significant issues at the WMF. It's best practice to > inform the ED when board talks to staff, but only if informing the ED would > not harm the purpose of those conversations - and in this case it would. > I'm also going to state here that I've had a number of conversations with > employees in the same time frame James was having them, and that combined > with other details is why I am absolutely convinced they were necessary. > > One of the first leveled and oftened returned to statements as to why James > was removed was that he had conversations with employees that were > inappropriate. Every employee who has come forward stating they had > conversations with James has stated that those conversations were > necessary, and exactly the type of conversation that a trustee should be > having when the situation has gotten to a point where they are, > unfortunately, necessary. James had the trust of both the community and > many WMF employees, which is why so many people who felt they needed to > talk went to him. I have no doubt that many other trustees were doing > important less visible work, many probably even about the same problem, but > James was handling an element of it - direct communication with employees - > that was absolutely necessary for the continued success of the Foundation, > even if all other aspects had been handled. > > It's unfortunate that James and Jimmy have gotten in to it in public, but - > I hate to say this, but there's no other way around it - Jimmy should be > embarassed. He's been exceptionally disrespectful of a respected community > member, but worse than that, he's flat out lied on multiple occasions about > the situation involving James. If someone challenges me on that statement, > as I have time, I will compile a list of diffs and archived emails in which > he's done so. If the situation between James and Jimmy is such that a > healthy board dynamic with both as trustees is not possible, then frankly > Jimmy should step down, or at a minimum give up the concept of a Founder's > seat, convert it to a community elected seat, stay on as a board member > until the next elections, and then run as an ordinary community member in > the next set of elections. > > I think it should also be stated for the public record that Jimmy was the > individual who pushed for Lila's stay to be extended (and I like Lila, I > really do,) and for trustees to not speak with the day to day WMF employees > that have formed the backbone of the WMF side of the movement. I also > don't know who put the FAQ together, but want to point out that it's not > factually accurate to say that James cannot run in the next elections, as > at least one official FAQ stated at one point. That would be true if he > was a community ELECTED board member removed for cause. He wasn't, so the > relevant provision doesn't apply, and he's eligible to run again as soon as > there are faux-elections again. > > ---- > Kevin Gorman > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:26 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for >> greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I >> plan to run in the next community (s)election. >> >> Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF >> back together again and I would like to thank the current board for taking >> that step. We have a number of C-levels who are able to do an excellent job >> as interim ED. I will post more about this soon but am just heading out to >> ski. >> >> -- >> James Heilman >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian >> >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
