Mailing List Archive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
Sorry Pete, there is not.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@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.wiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
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.meijssen@gmail.com>:

> Hoi,
> Sorry Pete, there is not.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@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.wiki@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
Hi,

I second everything said below. Yann

2016-05-08 5:20 GMT+02:00 Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>:

> Denny,
>
> I appreciate that you've put forth this account. That's in no way facetious
> or just a pretext, I am actually very glad to see someone speak to this.
>
> I'd like, however, to suggest what would actually begin the process of
> healing, since that's your intent. Most of us knew at least more or less
> what James was accused of.
>
> First, James needs to be restored to the Board, or at very least, his
> restoration needs to be passed as a referendum to the community. Since
> you've now posted your side, there's no reason that the community, rather
> than the Board, shouldn't decide on James' trusteeship. That needs to
> happen now, not at the next election, and it should have happened to start
> with.
>
> Second, the Board needs to resolve never to remove a community trustee
> except by a successful recall referendum to the community. The Board should
> never, under any circumstances, remove a community trustee without consent
> of the community that elected them. That was unacceptable and must never
> happen again. There will be no "healing" without a promise that it will
> not.
>
> Third, the "founder" seat needs to be eliminated. Jimmy would be, of
> course, eligible to run for a community seat or be appointed to an expert
> seat, but he shouldn't be a "member for life". Alternatively, the "founder"
> seat could be made into an advisory, non-voting position.
>
> And finally, while this part is optional, it wouldn't hurt for the Board to
> increase the number of community elected ( and not "recommended", elected)
> seats to a majority. While there's room for "expert" appointed seats and
> chapter selected seats (and no, chapter selected seats are NOT community
> selected seats), the community should be in control and have a majority,
> and the others should be an advisory minority. The community has always
> been in charge of WMF projects, and this should continue to be the case.
>
> If you want to actually start the healing process, rather than deflect, at
> the very least the first three things need to be done. If you want to
> regain trust, all of them need to be. The community needs to be in charge.
>
> Todd
>
>
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
I don't support that statement from Todd , that is not how a board of a
foundantion works ..
please refer to the statutory (bylaws) provisions, that might be how
todd ideally would like things to function
but that is not much more then wishfull thinking .

Derek

On 10-05-16 01:46, Yann Forget wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I second everything said below. Yann
>
> 2016-05-08 5:20 GMT+02:00 Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>:
>
>> Denny,
>>
>> I appreciate that you've put forth this account. That's in no way facetious
>> or just a pretext, I am actually very glad to see someone speak to this.
>>
>> I'd like, however, to suggest what would actually begin the process of
>> healing, since that's your intent. Most of us knew at least more or less
>> what James was accused of.
>>
>> First, James needs to be restored to the Board, or at very least, his
>> restoration needs to be passed as a referendum to the community. Since
>> you've now posted your side, there's no reason that the community, rather
>> than the Board, shouldn't decide on James' trusteeship. That needs to
>> happen now, not at the next election, and it should have happened to start
>> with.
>>
>> Second, the Board needs to resolve never to remove a community trustee
>> except by a successful recall referendum to the community. The Board should
>> never, under any circumstances, remove a community trustee without consent
>> of the community that elected them. That was unacceptable and must never
>> happen again. There will be no "healing" without a promise that it will
>> not.
>>
>> Third, the "founder" seat needs to be eliminated. Jimmy would be, of
>> course, eligible to run for a community seat or be appointed to an expert
>> seat, but he shouldn't be a "member for life". Alternatively, the "founder"
>> seat could be made into an advisory, non-voting position.
>>
>> And finally, while this part is optional, it wouldn't hurt for the Board to
>> increase the number of community elected ( and not "recommended", elected)
>> seats to a majority. While there's room for "expert" appointed seats and
>> chapter selected seats (and no, chapter selected seats are NOT community
>> selected seats), the community should be in control and have a majority,
>> and the others should be an advisory minority. The community has always
>> been in charge of WMF projects, and this should continue to be the case.
>>
>> If you want to actually start the healing process, rather than deflect, at
>> the very least the first three things need to be done. If you want to
>> regain trust, all of them need to be. The community needs to be in charge.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
...
> 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.

It's simple enough to test "broad agreement" by having a public vote
open for all Wikimedians. Maybe you can kick one off?

> 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.

Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations
that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including
several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite
of many employees and significant sums of money. There is no need to
turn improvement of democratic governance of the WMF board into a
challenging drama that turns the "WMF upside down".

Perhaps we should stop looking for hypothetical excuses to avoid
changing the way the WMF board governs itself, and start to set
targets for the WMF board so that board members take an active part in
leading basic improvement to transparency and accountability in
public, rather than alluding to confidential political horse-trading
in back-rooms. The WMF is not a heated political party, or a
fuddy-duddy old-boys club for people who don't understand simple legal
words, neither should becoming a trustee be seen as a personal honour
that means that asking difficult questions or holding a trustee to
account for their action or inaction is batted away as a personal
attack.

The WMF board is locked into a infectious mind-set that is overripe
for modernization and the removal of ego driven politics. It would be
refreshing to see selfless inspiring board leadership that meets the
public expectations for free open knowledge in the 21st century.

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

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
And then there are all those people who wonder why you keep harping on the
same subject..

Sigh.. Who is that community in your image?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 10 May 2016 at 13:14, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
>
> It's simple enough to test "broad agreement" by having a public vote
> open for all Wikimedians. Maybe you can kick one off?
>
> > 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.
>
> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations
> that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including
> several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite
> of many employees and significant sums of money. There is no need to
> turn improvement of democratic governance of the WMF board into a
> challenging drama that turns the "WMF upside down".
>
> Perhaps we should stop looking for hypothetical excuses to avoid
> changing the way the WMF board governs itself, and start to set
> targets for the WMF board so that board members take an active part in
> leading basic improvement to transparency and accountability in
> public, rather than alluding to confidential political horse-trading
> in back-rooms. The WMF is not a heated political party, or a
> fuddy-duddy old-boys club for people who don't understand simple legal
> words, neither should becoming a trustee be seen as a personal honour
> that means that asking difficult questions or holding a trustee to
> account for their action or inaction is batted away as a personal
> attack.
>
> The WMF board is locked into a infectious mind-set that is overripe
> for modernization and the removal of ego driven politics. It would be
> refreshing to see selfless inspiring board leadership that meets the
> public expectations for free open knowledge in the 21st century.
>
> Fae
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
Hoi,

Congratulations Gerard! You have remained in top position, dominating
this list by making the most posts for the last six months.[1]

Sigh.. thank goodness the community is in absolutely no doubt about
your opinion, thank you so much for investing all your time in
repeating yourself and ensuring that your voice remains number one.
Thank you so much for your personal criticism of any voice that
disagrees with yours.

Thanks,
Fae

Links
1. https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html

On 10 May 2016 at 14:29, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> And then there are all those people who wonder why you keep harping on the
> same subject..
>
> Sigh.. Who is that community in your image?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 10 May 2016 at 13:14, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> It's simple enough to test "broad agreement" by having a public vote
>> open for all Wikimedians. Maybe you can kick one off?
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations
>> that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including
>> several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite
>> of many employees and significant sums of money. There is no need to
>> turn improvement of democratic governance of the WMF board into a
>> challenging drama that turns the "WMF upside down".
>>
>> Perhaps we should stop looking for hypothetical excuses to avoid
>> changing the way the WMF board governs itself, and start to set
>> targets for the WMF board so that board members take an active part in
>> leading basic improvement to transparency and accountability in
>> public, rather than alluding to confidential political horse-trading
>> in back-rooms. The WMF is not a heated political party, or a
>> fuddy-duddy old-boys club for people who don't understand simple legal
>> words, neither should becoming a trustee be seen as a personal honour
>> that means that asking difficult questions or holding a trustee to
>> account for their action or inaction is batted away as a personal
>> attack.
>>
>> The WMF board is locked into a infectious mind-set that is overripe
>> for modernization and the removal of ego driven politics. It would be
>> refreshing to see selfless inspiring board leadership that meets the
>> public expectations for free open knowledge in the 21st century.
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the fact
that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia content
without making their derivative work open.


- *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you
may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
compatible license.


On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:00 AM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
> > I used the phrase "run amok" based on comments at
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine/FAQ>. Specifically,
> > Brion Vibber writes:
> >
> > "Former VP of Engineering Damon Sicore, who as far as I know conceived
> the
> > 'knowledge engine', shopped the idea around in secret (to the point of
> > GPG-encrypting emails about it) with the idea that Google/etc form an
> > 'existential threat' to Wikipedia in the long term by co-opting our
> > traffic, potentially reducing the inflow of new contributors via the
> > 'reader -> editor' pipeline. [...]"
> >
> > Jimmy Wales replies:
> >
> > "It is important, most likely, that people know that Damon's secrecy was
> > not something that was known to me or the rest of the board. I've only
> > yesterday been sent, by a longtime member of staff who prefers to remain
> > anonymous, the document that Damon was passing around GPG-encrypted with
> > strict orders to keep it top secret. Apparently, he (and he alone, as far
> > as I can tell) really was advocating for taking a run at Google. [...]"
> >
>
>
> I find it interesting to compare Damon's purported concerns with those
> voiced by Jimmy Wales in his October emails to James Heilman, as made
> available to the Signpost:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-24/Op-ed
>
> There we read that Wales said:
>
> <quote>
> Right now the page at www.wikipedia.org is pretty useless. There's no
> question it could be improved. Is your concern that if we improve it and it
> starts to look like a "search engine" in the first definition this could
> cause us problems?
>
> Are you concerned that in due course we might expand beyond just internal
> search (across all our properties)?
>
> Right now when I type "Queen Elizabeth II" I am taken to the article about
> her. I'm not told about any other resources we may have about her.
>
> If I type a search term for which there is no Wikipedia entry, I'm taken to
> our wikipedia search results page – which is pretty bad.
>
> Here's an example: search for 'how old is tom cruise?'
>
> It returns 10 different articles, none of which are Tom Cruise!
>
> When I search in Google – I'm just told the answer to the question. Google
> got this answer from us, I'm quite sure.
>
> So, yes, this would include Google graph type of functionality. Why is that
> alarming to you?
>
> ...
>
> I don't agree that there's a serious gulf between what we have been told
> and what funders are being told.
>
> ...
>
> Imagine if we could handle a wide range of questions that are easy enough
> to do by using wikidata / data embedded in templates / textual analysis.
>
> "How old is Tom Cruise?"
>
> "Is Tom Cruise married?"
>
> "How many children does Tom Cruise have?"
>
> The reason this is relevant is that we are falling behind what users
> expect. 5 years ago, questions like that simple returned Wikipedia as the
> first result at Google. Now, Google just tells the answer and the users
> don't come to us.
> <end of quote>
>
>
> When told that there clearly had been an attempt to fund a massive project
> to build a search engine that was then "scoped down to a $250k exploration
> for a fully developed plan", Wales replied:
>
>
> <quote>
> In my opinion: There was and there is and there will be. I strongly support
> the effort, and I'm writing up a public blog post on that topic today. Our
> entire fundraising future is at stake.
> <end of quote>
>
>
> Wales's concerns don't sound all that different from Sicore's to me.
>
> Both seem to have perceived developments at Google as an existential
> threat, because users get their answers there without having to navigate to
> Wikipedia or Wikidata (which are among the sources from which Google takes
> its answers).
>
> Nor do I think these concerns are entirely unfounded. By opting for a CC
> licence allowing full commercial re-use, years ago, Wikipedia set itself up
> to be cannibalised in precisely that way.
>
> For better or worse, it relinquished all control over how and by whom its
> knowledge would be presented. It should hardly come as a surprise that
> commercial operators then step up to exploit that vacuum, set up commercial
> operations based on Wikimedia content, and eventually draw users away.
>
> Moreover, the current search function does suck. Anyone looking for a
> picture on Commons for example is better off using Google than the internal
> search function.
>
> What I don't understand is why all the secrecy and double-talk was
> necessary.
>
>
>
>
> > These same individuals posted to this mailing list:
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082150.html
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083163.html
> >
> > This reported secrecy and cloak-and-dagger behavior is what I'm referring
> > to when I say Damon ran amok. I suppose we can leave it as an exercise to
> > the reader whether "run amok" is accurate phrasing given the evidence
> > presented. Upon reading the previous comments that Damon, not Lila, was
> > responsible for the secrecy, I'm perplexed by your recent comment
> > regarding "Lila's decision." What am I missing?
>
>
>
> Damon left in July 2015. Secrecy around the Knowledge Engine project and
> the Knight grant lasted until February 2016. Perhaps this no longer
> involved GPG encryption, but as late as 29 January 2016 Lila still led the
> community to believe that "donor privacy" issues were the reason why the
> board didn't publish the Knight Foundation grant agreement:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)/Archive_12#Why_did_the_board_not_publish_this_grant_paperwork.3F
>
> Yet the donor was in favour of full transparency ...
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
On 10 May 2016 at 15:35, The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.com> wrote:
> One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the fact
> that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia content
> without making their derivative work open.
>
>
> - *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you
> may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
> compatible license.
>

They would argue that they are using the facts not the presentation of
those facts and facts are not subject to copyright.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
1. Restore James Heilman to the board (in Denny's now vacant seat)
Yes. Although there should be a process for removing community trustees,
there's 0 question that the process used to remove James was
inappropriate. Even if this harms somewhat the functioning the board until
the next election... Board doesn't seem too functional as it is right now,
but at the same time, I've definitely seen more dysfunctional boards manage
orgs of similar size.

2. Never remove a community trustee
There should be a way to remove a community trustee, but it requires
community feedback. In an 'emergency' situation, I'd be happy if even a
subset of stewards and functionaries were involved, with the issue later
being brought forth before the community for a satisfactory explanation -
not the claptrap found in the FAQ about James (some of which is downright
wrong.)

3. Eliminate Founder's Seat, with various future possibilities for Jimmy
Wales' role.

I'm pretty sure that I was getting counted in the "anti-Jimmy" camp
mentioned earlier, but the funny thing is, I'm not anti-Jimmy. I've
explicitly reached out to him to ask for his assistance on a number of
issues before, including a few issues where he was the only person likely
to be willing to help. Ex: with Wiki-PR breaking, WMF legal and comms did
not want to issue a strong statement because they realized some of the
information I had given them had come from someone violating an NDA (FWIW:
NDA's in California are unenforceable without compensation, and the person
in question was an unpaid intern; the NDA was invalid.) Jimmy (along with
James Hare) issued strong public condemnations of the situation in a move
that helped us not look like complete shit in the media. What has
concerned me most about Jimmy's involvement in the current situation
(ignoring a general feeling that he should be coming less involved, not
more involved, in the day to day running of WMF, as well as feeling that we
shouldn't have a trustee for life) is that he has consistently made
statements that, even in California, constitute defamation per se against
James Heilman - and I put a lot of thought in to it before stating that for
the first time. 99% of the time my role is to convince people that
statements made against them are *not* defamatory in California, let alone
constitute defamation per se - but Jimmy's statements have really crossed a
line. He has repeatedly, without evidence, and in the direct face of
comments made by his own staff, including some of his own most senior
staff, made claims about James' behavior that he had not backed up with
evidence, including the claim that James is unable to hold a confidence.
As James is quite literally a medical doctor, these statements are...
well... worse than they otherwise would be. I again really doubt that
James' would sue, but it's not okay that we have a trustee *for life*
putting himself and likely the Foundation at risk of monetary and
reputational harm. I know some people have compiled partial diff lists
already, but tomorrow I'm going to start to diff dive for defamatory
statements Jimmy has made against James, and explicitly call for some sort
of restorative justice process (which requires Jimmy's active involvement
and willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing,) and if no progress is made in a
week, start an open letter summarizing the issue and asking Jimmy to either
step aside or the board to take action. I'm pretty confident that a
well-written open letter with a significant number of signatories will come
to the attention of the press, and I'd much rather have this resolved
before it gets that far.

4. (expressed as optional) Make Community seats truly elected; increase
number.

Making them truly elected poses problems revising the governance documents,
but I never imagined they would be treated as recommendations carrying at
best about as much weight as an average undergrad letter of
recommmendation, which seems to be about what they're at now. This can be
done with changes in practice, rather than actual revisions to the
governing documents. And I strongly support increasing their number.

Adding on:

5. WMF BOT needs to undergo a full governance review, and they need to
undergo one starting soon. If needed, I can start recommending firms that
specialize in NPO governance reviews. There's just an amazing amount going
wrong at the same time, which points to broken underlying processes - and
the exact reason nonprofit governance consultants exist is that the same
broken practices tend to appear in organization after organization. There
is no shame in looking to others before us to better ourselves, and we
certainly have the reserves to commission a full review. We made WMUK
undergo a similar (though different scoped review) for far more minor
problems, there's no way that it's acceptable or a good idea for WMF BOT to
avoid public review of their practices when this much has happened this
quickly. If we can improve the functioning of the BoT for what is, in
terms of our budget and reserves, a minor amount of money, how can we
justify NOT doing so?

----
Kevin Gorman

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:18 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10 May 2016 at 15:35, The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the
> fact
> > that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia
> content
> > without making their derivative work open.
> >
> >
> > - *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you
> > may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
> > compatible license.
> >
>
> They would argue that they are using the facts not the presentation of
> those facts and facts are not subject to copyright.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
Hi Fae,

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations
> that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including
> several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite
> of many employees and significant sums of money.


can you share a few examples of organizations where board members are
appointed in a binding election and members of the electorate do not have
to identify themselves to the organization?

Or are you suggesting that the WMF should turn into a membership
organization and Wikimedians who are unwilling to share personally
identifying information with the WMF should not be allowed to vote?
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Gergő Tisza <gtisza@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Fae,
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations
>> that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including
>> several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite
>> of many employees and significant sums of money.
>
>
> can you share a few examples of organizations where board members are
> appointed in a binding election and members of the electorate do not have
> to identify themselves to the organization?
>
> Or are you suggesting that the WMF should turn into a membership
> organization and Wikimedians who are unwilling to share personally
> identifying information with the WMF should not be allowed to vote?

I dont see how the voting method is particularly relevant to this thread..?
It seems this thread is more about governance by post-appointment
trustees, who have been properly vetted before being appointed.

I dont recall that we've had any serious incidents of the board
election outcome being disrupted because we use a voting process that
includes non-identified people.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Gergő Tisza <gtisza@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Fae,
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations
>>> that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including
>>> several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite
>>> of many employees and significant sums of money.
>>
>>
>> can you share a few examples of organizations where board members are
>> appointed in a binding election and members of the electorate do not have
>> to identify themselves to the organization?
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that the WMF should turn into a membership
>> organization and Wikimedians who are unwilling to share personally
>> identifying information with the WMF should not be allowed to vote?
>
> I dont see how the voting method is particularly relevant to this thread..?
> It seems this thread is more about governance by post-appointment
> trustees, who have been properly vetted before being appointed.
>
> I dont recall that we've had any serious incidents of the board
> election outcome being disrupted because we use a voting process that
> includes non-identified people.

i.e. I think we , the community, selected *three* **great** Trustees
in the last community election, and the issues that caused us to loose
two of them are post-appointment and we should be looking into the
governance post-appointment to prevent it happening again.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3  View All