Hi Pete,

if Jimmy Wales' behaviour has degenerated to the level of making
personal attacks off-list while posting contradictory soft soap
on-list (such as not being against James rerunning, and he did not
want to vote James off the board but this was everyone else on the WMF
board that forced his hand), then he is the type of self-inflated
celebrity that neither the Wikimedia community or the board of the WMF
should accept as an appointed trustee, without a community vote which
will at least hold him to account for his past behaviour in a way that
his fellow trustees are obviously unable to do.

Can you please forward your complete evidence to the WMF board of
trustees? If they ever take credible action to improve governance,
then the campaign of nasty personal attacks we have seen Jimmy Wales
make over the last month against James should be examined in detail by
a "grown-up" who can give the board feedback on the minimum ethical
behaviour expected from a trustee, along with educating them as to
what "removal for cause" means and how it must apply to Jimmy Wales as
much as any other member of the board.

I find it deeply disturbing that a trustee behaving so ridiculously
childishly is at this moment a self-appointed conduit for WMF staff
feedback to the board, and a self-appointed spokesman for what the WMF
is looking for in the next CEO.

P.S. I'll be returning to Jimmy's blatant conflict of loyalties
between Wikia and the WMF, and his refusal to recognize there may be a
governance issue requiring transparent management (i.e. seeing
something mentioned in the public board meeting minutes), when the
list is quieter.


On 2 March 2016 at 16:45, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The message below went without response on the list, but there was a
> significant off-list response.
> Jimmy Wales wrote to James Heilman, and CC'd me. His message professed to
> praise this one, but missed its main points:
> * There was no mention of professional mediation or facilitation to work
> through disagreements
> * Jimmy Wales had *even worse* things to say about James Heilman than he
> has said in public.
> I won't repeat those words on a public list, but I am unimpressed with the
> tactic of moving personal attacks off list. Jimmy's message was sent 48
> hours ago, and I immediately told him the things I've said here, but there
> has been no response.
> We should not use off-list messages to convey thoughts that would be
> completely unacceptable if said in public. I don't want to be involved in
> stuff like that -- and I'd much rather it didn't happen to begin with.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, 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>
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to