Sorry Pete, there is not.
On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keegan, thank you for clarifying; I understand better now. I agree about
> the dynamics; I wouldn't say Jimmy Wales' role on the Board is unrelated,
> though, as Denny's message was intended to shed light on a dynamic that has
> clearly involved Jimmy Wales in a central role.
> It seems (as is often the case) that we have gotten a little off track with
> some details, where there is some disagreement; but I suspect there is a
> pretty high degree of agreement on most of the steps Todd recommended
> above. I'll summarize them again here:
> 1. Restore James Heilman to the board (in Denny's now vacant seat)
> 2. Never remove a community trustee
> 3. Eliminate Founder's Seat, with various future possibilities for Jimmy
> Wales' role.
> 4. (expressed as optional) Make Community seats truly elected; increase
> I pretty much agree with all of this, and I feel it would be helpful if
> others would briefly state if they do too. My comments:
> 1. We'd be lucky if James Heilman stays willing to serve. He was a good
> trustee to begin with, and it seems apparent the reasons for his removal
> were vastly insufficient. Jimmy and Denny have both made various efforts to
> justify the decision, which is appreciated, but I find the results entirely
> lacking. Guy Kawasaki, Frieda Brioschi, Alice Wiegand, and Patricio Lorente
> remain on the board, but have said almost nothing on the topic. At least
> one trustee has stated that he "voted with the majority" as though that is
> compatible with good governance (which it obviously isn't, as no trustee
> should be able to know others' votes for certain prior to deciding their
> own); and as though the upgrade from "majority" to "two-thirds majority"
> (required under Florida law for not-for-cause removal) isn't significant.
> 2. I agree with both Dariusz and James. I don't see an explicit need for
> changes to policy, but some articulation of process, or commentary on what
> kind of things could trigger expulsion could be very helpful.
> 3. Eliminate Founder's Seat: Yes. The board should vote to remove Jimmy
> Wales from the Founder's Seat (because there is still more than 2.5 years
> left in his term), and should vote to eliminate the Founder's Seat. What
> happens after is a separate question; a special advisory role seems ideal
> to me. These steps are easily accomplished. It's hard for me to imagine how
> a trustee could persuade him or herself that Jimmy's continued presence in
> the privileged Founder's Seat is in the best interests of the Wikimedia
> By the way, I think the WMF board may have successfully obscured the fact
> that Jimmy Wales' role has actually *increased* in recent months, not
> decreased: board minutes that took a long time to publish revealed that he
> was the first (and to my knowledge only) person selected as a Trustee of
> the new Endowment. I haven't seen this discussed anywhere.
> 4. I agree that tinkering with board composition may be valuable, but is
> secondary to the others. The main thing here is, the board should start to
> get the very basics of governance right. Any consideration of the structure
> of the board distracts from the fact that individuals made bad decisions.
> The main focus should be on correcting those errors, and rebuilding trust.
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain
> > > communication channels, not "our entire movement.")
> > >
> > > But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a
> > > certain trustee should remain in their position.
> > >
> > You are correct, because that's not where I was going with that: Denny's
> > account here has no logical relation as to whether or not Jimmy should be
> > on the board. It's being used to promote a political position.
> > >
> > > Also: If there are eight people who repeat something ad nauseum,
> > it
> > > stand to reason that there might be more than eight who feel the same
> > way,
> > > but don't see the benefit in repeating it ad nauseum? Doesn't it stand
> > > reason that there might be more than eight who *cannot* publicly state
> > > their view, without risking (in reality or in their imagination)
> > > substantial backlash due to their roles?
> > Yes, there is a political camp within the movement that is anti-Jimmy
> > is larger than eight people. These eight do a fine job speaking up loudly
> > to let us know that there is a political camp that is anti-Jimmy. That's
> > fine to feel that way. To continually hijack important conversations
> > vision, strategy, and process to have to /always/ talk about a single
> > individual or cause is harmful to our movement. It's simple
> > DivideAndConquer group dynamics, and it should not be supported. I'm not
> > saying that people or groups cannot or should not be criticised - it's
> > important. But the shell game that Blame Jimmy is not helpful in the
> > --
> > ~Keegan
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > is in a personal capacity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com