Nope, I don't have the feeling there is such broad agreement on those four
points indeed. The only thing I heard broad agreement on, is that the
removal of James was painful, and clumsily handled. Probably there is also
broad agreement that with the facts on the table as they are, others would
not quickly agree with that decision.

But after all that has passed, I'm really not sure how constructive it
would be to reappoint James to the board at this point. This is a different
decision than the one to remove someone. You can disagree with removal, and
then also disagree with reappointment. I don't say it /shouldn't/ happen,
but I'm rather unsure about it. What we need right now at the WMF is a
functional board of trustees, and forcing someone down their throat would
probably take away energy and attention to what they should really focus
on.

I also don't think there is any agreement on 'never remove a community
trustee'. I do feel there is agreement that the process is flawed, and
needs improvement. There are many people who asked for an additional step
in that process. I'm not so sure if that is legally possible without
turning the structure of the WMF upside down.

The elimination of the Founder seat, I'm also not so certain there is broad
agreement. There are doubts though, for sure. And there is also no broad
agreement to keep the seat as it is.

And finally, yes, I do think there are many people who want to 'truly
elect' community representatives. But again, I'm uncertain whether that is
legally possible without turning the structure of the WMF upside down. In a
foundation, the board has the ultimate authority, so to include a rule that
delegates that authority to an vaguely defined group of people is...
tricky.

As many of these points are tricky, legally speaking, I would rather
suggest to re-evaluate the setup of the WMF in general, and take these
points as part of that process. Lets do that after the ED search is at
least well underway. These processes tend to take more energy than you
expect. And there's no board approval necessary to make a proposal from
community input of course!

Lodewijk

2016-05-09 5:41 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:

> Hoi,
> Sorry Pete, there is not.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> 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.
> >
> > All:
> >
> > 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
> >    number.
> >
> > 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
> > Foundation.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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,
> > doesn't
> > > 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
> > to
> > > > 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
> > that
> > > 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
> > about
> > > 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
> > very
> > > important. But the shell game that Blame Jimmy is not helpful in the
> > least.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > >
> > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > address
> > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

Reply via email to