Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
cycle.  As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause.  Every
reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
WMF employees.  E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
conversations, and simply listened to their feedback.  In an ideal
situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board alerting
the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
conversations, which they would have hear.

More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks,
we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' - the
board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
which the board may then choose to accept or reject.  Given the fact that
we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
James can stand in the next 'community board selection.'

Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested you
to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me.  W/r/t an email
related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
transparency seems necessary.  You've said the email contains nothing of
mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth there
- I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't get
that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
confidential w/r/t the BoT?  I'm sure James will comment if your redactions
are excessive.  Without any confidential information, all the email is is a
document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
transparent as possible about.

Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk <> wrote:

> Dear Jimmy,
> Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate signals that
> lead to a better understanding and coming to terms with each other. I
> am happy to read that you wouldn't, as a person, object to a return of
> James to the board.
> However, the FAQ says in the introduction: "The Board has compiled
> this list of answers to many of the most common questions." So this
> FAQ is a statement of the board, also in your name.
> Which relates to your very decision to vote for the removal of another
> board member. Why did you support the removal? For a gut feeling
> anticipation that James might misbehave in future? Or for specific
> actions of James in the past, actions that could be defined legally,
> or at least within the frame of the WMF regulations? You know: nulla
> poena sine lege.
> I don't want to judge about matters I don't know sufficiently about. I
> don't want to speculate and spread rumors. I don't want to rely on
> leaked documents. I don't want to show disrespect to people who invest
> a lot of time in order to keep the board and the Foundation running.
> I just want to know, as a voter, why a board member coming from the
> elections has been removed, and what are the consequences. Because I
> want to know what is the value of my vote.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> PS: Thanks for the quote, Chris; I wonder what "next annual meeting"
> means in our context.
> 2016-02-29 16:51 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic <>:
> > I agree as well.
> > On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales" <> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> I agree with you completely.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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