Pete, According to his Signpost piece three weeks ago[1], James Heilman emailed the board in mid-October about the Knight Foundation grant to warn the board, and I quote –
*"4) There is a serious lack of transparency around this new "sister project". This has not been discussed with our communities as far as I am aware. Please correct me if I am wrong. As such it has the potential to worsen WMF / community relations. Starting a new sister site without community discussion is not the wiki way."* No board member has come forward to deny that James sent this email. In the same piece, James also said: *"I emailed the board list offering to write up an overview of these ideas for the Signpost, which was met with negative comments by some board members."* Nobody has denied that that happened, either. Now, Jimmy said on-wiki[2] two days ago, and I quote: *"I didn't see anything particularly unusual or controversial about the concepts being presented to us about the evolving ideas around improving search and discover, and I simply assumed that there was community discussion and consultation **[...] had we **understood that a disconnect was going on, and that the community was not being consulted, we absolutely would have pushed harder for community engagement sooner. As it is, I think most likely other board members, like me, simply assumed that it was being talked about and not treated as some kind of super top secret thing. Is that helpful?"* Can you help me figure out how Jimmy and the board could have "assumed" that there was community discussion and consultation about the Knowledge Engine project when James Heilman 1. had started a board discussion in mid-October specifically to point out that there was no community discussion and consultation, 2. had offered to write an article for the Signpost about the project to inform the community, 3. was told by his colleagues on the board that the idea of a Signpost article was not welcome? I'm finding it impossible to reconcile. And like Sarah, I am struck by the fact that so far, everything James Heilman has said about this turned out to be true. Andreas [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=707285756&oldid=707282252 Quote in full: *"The board has broadly encouraged open discussion and disclosure, and I'm unaware of anyone individually giving her advice to hide anything about long term strategy. Going into slightly more depth than that, I didn't see anything particularly unusual or controversial about the concepts being presented to us about the evolving ideas around improving search and discover, and I simply assumed that there was community discussion and consultation about it. The grander concept which, as I now understand, Damon was pitching via cloak-and-dagger PGP encrypted files (one employee told me that he had to give his PGP key on a USB stick because Damon didn't trust the public keyservers), didn't really get traction and was quickly abandoned. By the time of the board meeting in Mexico City, we specifically discussed that this would not be anything like a "Google competitor". As to the exact details of every single discussion with funders, obviously the board is not privy to those as a practical matter. Certainly had we understood that a disconnect was going on, and that the community was not being consulted, we absolutely would have pushed harder for community engagement sooner. As it is, I think most likely other board members, like me, simply assumed that it was being talked about and not treated as some kind of super top secret thing. Is that helpful?--Jimbo Wales <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>(talk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)"* On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's > encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this > part: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for > "The > > board.. has offered no objections to any board member discussing long > term > > strategy with the community at any time" should make all of us worry. I > > have provided evidence that refutes this claim here > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus > > > As somebody who's following this, but who's not locked in a dispute, it > seems there is a very natural explanation for this, that should not > especially make us worry: > > Different people, reasonable people, can reasonably disagree about what > constitutes "discussing long term strategy" and what does not. > > For the entire board to agree to a statement like that does not strike me > as especially bad; perhaps there was a dominant idea of what constituted > strategy and what didn't, and everybody voted with that idea in mind, > without insisting on a clearer definition in the text of the statement. Not > ideal, I think -- but also not the end of the world. > > But Jimmy, you have repeatedly claimed that vote as evidence that James > told a lie. > > That claim introduces a lot of drama into the discussion -- and does > exactly something you stated you didn't want to do, which is publicly > assaulting James' reputation. > > I would suggest you both stop accusing each other of lying, long enough to > figure out what facts you *can* agree on. You're both Wikipedians, we do > this all the time. It might involve getting out of some of the language > patterns you've been using, e.g. getting away from abstract notions like > "long term strategy." > > A skilled, professional mediator, facilitator, or ombudsman can be an > excellent resource for working through stuff like this. > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > _______________________________________________ > 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>
