Taking María's statement on behalf of the WMF by itself, there are a
couple of simple in-line questions about handling governance I would
like to make, based on my experience with a number of governance
issues both within and outside of Wikimedia related organizations.

I'm sticking to this being a governance case, as the WMF Board can
only be expected to make resolutions on the basis of good governance.

On 11 October 2017 at 18:54, María Sefidari <kewlshr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment
> in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed
> independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the
> information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.

The statement is short on factual detail despite being described as
specific. It would be reassuring if the following actions would be
considered by the Board, and responded to even if rejected:
1. Publish the timeline of events, which would be essential for any
governance review. Several events are implicit in the statement, but
absent any facts about when or who, they easily lead to later
confusion.
2. Publish the report from the investigators. If necessary this can be
redacted, however from emails that have been made a public record so
far, it's hard to imagine what now needs to remain confidential.
3. Explain who was contracted to produce the report and why and how
they were chosen.
4. Explain what information has been presented, so there can be no
doubt whether the WMF and the Board have been presented with all the
information available and the steps taken to ensure potential bias in
how information was selected was minimized, for example by not
pre-selecting who to talk to, rather than giving the investigators a
free hand to ask for interviews.

> The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if
> presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> allegations to be without merit.

This closing sentence seem to give a heavy implication that the Board
is aware that more information may exist than was used. It seems
unhelpful to have an investigation or review that does not take
proactive steps to gather information from all the stakeholders
identified so that it can stick as a final resolution. In the absence
of specifics, it's hard to imagine that anyone outside of the WMF
board will be able to understand if you are missing any critical
information, yet somehow that appears to be what you are expecting.

> On behalf of the Board,
>
>
> María Sefidari

Thanks for making a statement as a board to the email list, it's a
helpful communication channel to use this way. I appreciate that a
governance based response to allegations against a named trustee, will
not be the same as judging a harassment case that should happen
elsewhere.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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