This touches on matters beyond my scope of expertise.  I didn't write
that FAQ, and I am not an expert on legal terminology like
"mismanagement" or "misconduct".  I support that the board and legal
team review the matter seriously and generously.

All I'm saying is that if he is eligible, and if he is elected, then I
support him rejoining the board.  I'm putting forward that although I've
been disappointed by his behavior (and thanks to Pete's wise words, I'm
trying to open a private conversation to try to work through some of
that) I am not in any way a key obstacle to his rejoining.

On 2/29/16 6:35 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello Jimmy,
> Thank you for the note. I was wondering about the eligibility of
> James, because the page
> says:
> "Due to the removal from the Board, James is not eligible to be a
> candidate for the Board until the 2017 community selection process.
> Under the Bylaws, the Board oversees the rules and procedures for the
> community-selection process. If the Board determines that a candidate
> does not meet eligibility criteria, it may decline to appoint the
> candidate to the Board."
> Before 2017, James could be appointed to the board by the sitting
> board members. Is he eligible for such an appointment?
> According to the 2015 board selection page, a candidate for the
> community seats - and I assume that the rules for other seats are
> comparable - has to meet some criteria,
> "Prerequisites to candidacy".
> If James was eligible in spring 2015, I guess that he is also eligible
> at the moment. But why does the FAQ say that James is not eligible
> "now" because of the removal?
> The "prerequisites" say:
> "You must not have been removed from a position at a non-profit
> organization or other company because of mismanagement or misconduct"
> So would this be a reason for not appointing James to the board, or
> call him not eligible for the 2017 elections? Was James removed from
> the WMF Board for "mismanagement or misconduct"?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 2016-02-29 15:03 GMT+01:00 Amir E. Aharoni <>:
>> Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct.
>> Everybody is tired of this mystery.
>> I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of
>> unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates
>> the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in
>> ourselves.
>> Simply telling everybody's stories fully and openly is the only right thing
>> now.
>> בתאריך 29 בפבר׳ 2016 15:53,‏ "Nathan" <> כתב:
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
>>>> think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
>>>> First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
>>>> next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
>>>> don't know.
>>>> Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
>>>> support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
>>>> about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
>>>> mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
>>>> him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
>>>> told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
>>>> that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
>>>> least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.
>>>> Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
>>>> instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
>>>> I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
>>>> brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
>>>> inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling
>>>> down.
>>>> Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
>>>> the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
>>>> what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
>>>> on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
>>>> acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
>>>> to the things that actually upset people.
>>>> There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
>>>> have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.
>>> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
>>> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led you
>>> to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
>>> non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making vague
>>> assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
>>> lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then
>>> maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> New messages to:
>>> Unsubscribe:,
>>> <>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:, 
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to