In case my blanket "I disagree" left doubt, let me state very clearly -- I'm not seeking anybody's resignation here. (Just reread Dan's message and realized it's possible the beginning of my response could be read that way, though I think I'm pretty clear further down.) -Pete
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dan, I disagree. Three points: > > 1. Rogol explicitly said they *hesitate* to suggest that anybody resign; > nobody on this list has asked her to resign. Best not to exaggerate. > > 2. It is true that there is a higher level of scrutiny of the board than > there has been in the past. We should not forget that in the last year, the > board or its members: > * Ousted a community-selected member, for reasons generally regarded as > frivolous and insufficient; > * Defamed that same person following his ouster > * Appointed a new member with insufficient vetting, who subsequently had > to resign under pressure > * Lost another community-selected member, who cited reasons he had been > explicitly aware of during his candidacy > * Appointed a member to a community-selected seat who had not, in fact, > been selected by the community (I don't think this was actually a bad move > given the circumstances, but it's worth noting nonetheless) > * Lost an executive director (amid scandal) it had hailed as a perfect > "unicorn" just two years ago > > It therefore stands to reason that people will be more critical than usual > of the board's activities. I would argue this is healthy. The board has a > great deal of work to do in regaining the trust it has lost as an > institution. (I'll note that I published some suggestions about actions the > board could take; I have seen no indication that the board even read this > op-ed, much less considered implementing its suggestions. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/ > 2016-03-16/Op-ed ) > > 3. On the specifics mentioned here: Without suggesting that Ms. Battles or > anybody has done anything wrong, it is indeed prudent, as Rogol suggests, > to consider whether this might constitute a COI that directly impedes > important work on Wikimedia's behalf. I'm personally not as worried about > it as Rogol; I take it as a good sign that she has proactively announced it > here, and I trust it will be noted in a more visible location as well. I am > not sure that her area of specialization (finance) is something that would > really suffer from this particular COI. But as important as legal vetting > may be, it remains important that somebody pay attention to the fit of > board members with the general mission of the organization -- and I > wouldn't expect WMF staff lawyers to fill that role. Ordinarily, I think it > would be the board's role to pay attention to that -- but for the reasons > stated above, I think it's worthwhile if others in the movement pay > attention too. > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Dan Garry <dga...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> The mere potential that a conflict of interest may arise in the future is >> not necessarily a reason to resign from the board. This is why we have >> legal counsel such as Stephen and Michelle to determine whether such >> conflicts are serious enough to be inappropriate. We should all be >> satisfied with their opinions that this situation is fine in light of >> their >> reputation, experience, and credentials; I know I am. >> >> Minor conflicts of interest sometimes arise. That is normal, and as Kelly >> said, such conflicts can be managed. For example, when it happens, the >> relevant party can do things like recusing themselves from that discussion >> and stepping out of the room until the discussion is complete. This is >> standard procedure adopted by boards of other organisations, and also in >> parts of our movement such as the Arbitration Committees or Funds >> Dissemination Committee. >> >> Additionally, I am disturbed by the recent trend of seemingly all threads >> involving members of the Board of Trustees inevitably having someone >> asking >> a trustee to resign. I hope this absurdity does not continue. >> >> Dan >> >> On 2 November 2016 at 22:34, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Congratuations to Kelly Battles on her new job at Quora. I believe I'm >> > correct in saying that this is a company whose business is to make a >> profit >> > by pursuing its "mission is to share and grow the world’s knowledge". >> > Surely that means that in general the more and better the Wikimedia >> > projects pursue their mission, the more they will undercut Quora's >> > business? In particular, would not the Knowledge Engine, at least as >> > originally conceived, be very much in direct competition with Quora's >> > question-and-answer model? It seems to me that Kelly's duty to her new >> > employer is likely to come very clearly into conflict with her duty to >> the >> > Foundation, and while it is posible that this can be managed, will it >> not >> > seriously diminish her ability to work with the Board on the strategic >> > thinking they are just about to start? I hestiate to suggest that >> Kelly's >> > best course of action is to step down from the Board but I do believe it >> > needs serious consideration by herself and her fellow Trustees -- it is >> not >> > clear whether it is better for the Board to have another vacancy, or a >> > Trustee who is unable to engage in the strategy-setting which is so bady >> > needed. Indeed, with two vacancies already, and no clear indication of >> > when or how they will be filled, I suggest that the Board is in a rather >> > awkward position now. >> > >> > "Rogol" >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Dan Garry >> Lead Product Manager, Discovery >> Wikimedia Foundation >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> i/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>
