[Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
65 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

jmh649
I agree there needs to be a way to remove trustees, but IMO for community
elected trustees there needs to be community involvement in the process.
Also the ability to remove trustees "without cause" should be rescinded.

J

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > 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.
> Are you sure about this?
>
> Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation with James, I think it's a
> hostage to fortune.
>
> If there were a seriously dysfunctional trustee in future then this would
> amplify the damage they could do quite a bit, by making them unsackable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
As some of you may remember, I was the only trustee who voted against
James' removal except himself.

Nevertheless, I still believe that any functioning body as our Board has to
have the right to expel a person, whom they feel like not being able to
work with.

If a majority of my fellow Board members cannot stand me for whatever
reason (including the ones I'd find absurd), that's pretty much it. The
Board has to be able to function with trust, delegation, and a certain
rapport.

As long as such cases are really very rare,  I don't think there needs to
be much change from our process. Practically, I don't see how the community
could be involved - after all, if a majority of some Board just cannot
stand a person or there is a generalized mistrust, there is not much that
external insight will change.

However, we need a better process for dealing with vacant community seats
for sure. Also, I think it would be fair to always give written reasons to
removed members (also to discipline the reasoning of the Board that makes
such a drastic decision). About "for cause" or not, I have no opinion, as
it is the American legalese I am not and will not be fully proficient in.

Dariusz
08.05.2016 3:02 PM "James Heilman" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):

> I agree there needs to be a way to remove trustees, but IMO for community
> elected trustees there needs to be community involvement in the process.
> Also the ability to remove trustees "without cause" should be rescinded.
>
> J
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Chris Keating <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> > Are you sure about this?
> >
> > Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation with James, I think it's
> a
> > hostage to fortune.
> >
> > If there were a seriously dysfunctional trustee in future then this would
> > amplify the damage they could do quite a bit, by making them unsackable.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
We already have one of those.
Cheers,
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Keating
Sent: Sunday, 08 May 2016 8:38 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

> 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.
Are you sure about this?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation with James, I think it's a hostage to fortune.

If there were a seriously dysfunctional trustee in future then this would amplify the damage they could do quite a bit, by making them unsackable.

Regards,

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7596 / Virus Database: 4565/12191 - Release Date: 05/08/16


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
>
> Nevertheless, I still believe that any functioning body as our Board has to
> have the right to expel a person, whom they feel like not being able to
> work with.
>
> If a majority of my fellow Board members cannot stand me for whatever
> reason (including the ones I'd find absurd), that's pretty much it. The
> Board has to be able to function with trust, delegation, and a certain
> rapport.
>
> ...Also, I think it would be fair to always give written reasons to
> removed members (also to discipline the reasoning of the Board that makes
> such a drastic decision).


I think it would be helpful if expectations of Board members and processes
to follow if they aren't being met were laid out more clearly.

The WMF doesn't seem to document this much. Compare for instance Wikimedia
UK's Trustee Code of Conduct:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct

Something like that would be a useful structure on which to base future
conversations and decisions of that nature.

I agree with Dariusz that James's suggestion of formally engaging the
community in making these decisions probably wont' work. In my experience
the community is very aware of some issues and completely unaware of some
others. If it is the latter then it's very difficult to have a meaningful
conversation - particularly as some of the issues (e.g. staff matters) may
be confidential....

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Keegan Peterzell
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> We already have one of those.
> Cheers,
> P


​Right, okay, whatever.

Combing through WM-l archives for the past six months, there is a pattern:

James is removed from the board - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
Jimmy and James get into it in a public space -
the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
​The Arnon thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
The Knowledge Engine thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST
GO
The Lila thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
Denny writes this email - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO

Let's think on that for a bit when we want to talk about the power of
politics, and who is playing what game and what side they are on.

Did none of you who replied to this email from Denny with JIMMY MUST GO
bother to notice that Jimmy's name isn't even mentioned in this chain of
dysfunctional events? I suspect not, because the line has already clearly
drawn uncompromising the sand, and it was drawn years ago. If you want to
continue to pretend that Jimmy Wales is the root of all that's wrong with
the movement, that's your prerogative, but there's a reason why it's only
the same people saying it over and over again.

Denny, thank you for sharing your side of the story.


--
~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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

jmh649
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
My proposal was not to bring these sorts of issues to the "entire
community" for a vote but for some form of community involvement. I was
more thinking a group of functionaries who would be given confidential
access to details and provide a bit of a check and balance to internal
disagreements.

James

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> >
> > Nevertheless, I still believe that any functioning body as our Board has
> to
> > have the right to expel a person, whom they feel like not being able to
> > work with.
> >
> > If a majority of my fellow Board members cannot stand me for whatever
> > reason (including the ones I'd find absurd), that's pretty much it. The
> > Board has to be able to function with trust, delegation, and a certain
> > rapport.
> >
> > ...Also, I think it would be fair to always give written reasons to
> > removed members (also to discipline the reasoning of the Board that makes
> > such a drastic decision).
>
>
> I think it would be helpful if expectations of Board members and processes
> to follow if they aren't being met were laid out more clearly.
>
> The WMF doesn't seem to document this much. Compare for instance Wikimedia
> UK's Trustee Code of Conduct:
> https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct
>
> Something like that would be a useful structure on which to base future
> conversations and decisions of that nature.
>
> I agree with Dariusz that James's suggestion of formally engaging the
> community in making these decisions probably wont' work. In my experience
> the community is very aware of some issues and completely unaware of some
> others. If it is the latter then it's very difficult to have a meaningful
> conversation - particularly as some of the issues (e.g. staff matters) may
> be confidential....
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
In reply to this post by Keegan Peterzell
I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
constant and blatant double standard.

And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep
repeating their position ad nauseam.

On 8 May 2016 at 23:11, Keegan Peterzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > We already have one of those.
> > Cheers,
> > P
>
>
> ​Right, okay, whatever.
>
> Combing through WM-l archives for the past six months, there is a pattern:
>
> James is removed from the board - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> Jimmy and James get into it in a public space -
> the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> ​The Arnon thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> The Knowledge Engine thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST
> GO
> The Lila thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> Denny writes this email - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
>
> Let's think on that for a bit when we want to talk about the power of
> politics, and who is playing what game and what side they are on.
>
> Did none of you who replied to this email from Denny with JIMMY MUST GO
> bother to notice that Jimmy's name isn't even mentioned in this chain of
> dysfunctional events? I suspect not, because the line has already clearly
> drawn uncompromising the sand, and it was drawn years ago. If you want to
> continue to pretend that Jimmy Wales is the root of all that's wrong with
> the movement, that's your prerogative, but there's a reason why it's only
> the same people saying it over and over again.
>
> Denny, thank you for sharing your side of the story.
> ​
>
> --
> ~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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Keegan Peterzell
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
> constant and blatant double standard.
>
> And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
> ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep
> repeating their position ad nauseam.
>
>
​Our general movement mailing list is a cesspool of personal vendettas,
fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and people taking advantage of that in the
guise of caring about the movement. It's quite embarrassing.

I now anticipate the {{cn}} response, so here it is:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/

--
~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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Pete Forsyth-2
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.

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?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Keegan Peterzell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
> > constant and blatant double standard.
> >
> > And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
> > ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep
> > repeating their position ad nauseam.
> >
> >
> ​Our general movement mailing list is a cesspool of personal vendettas,
> fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and people taking advantage of that in the
> guise of caring about the movement. It's quite embarrassing.
>
> I now anticipate the {{cn}} response, so here it is:
>
> ​https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/
>
> --
> ~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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Keegan Peterzell
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Pete Forsyth-2
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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Atsme
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
In an effort to offer resolution to what Pete said below regarding Doc James’ removal, along with extending some form of compensation to Doc James and those of us in the community who elected him, I strongly believe his Board position should be immediately reinstated citing wrongful dismissal.  Doing so will serve two good faith purposes: (1) it will restore Doc’s credibility in the few instances where questions might have arisen, and (2) it will demonstrate good will on behalf of the Board for their mistake, and it should happen without delay.  I see no reason why it should have to go back through the voting process because doing so may be misconstrued as an evasion of responsibility by the Board for their actions.

Betty Wills (Atsme)


> On May 8, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Denny,
>
> Like Todd and others, I appreciate your candid exposition of how things
> went. It's important to have clarity about what happened here, and your
> contributions are very helpful toward that end. Thank you.
>
> However, these words ring hollow:
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It strengthens my resolution to stay away from Wikimedia politics
>
>
> You have also told us that you, a community-(s)elected trustee, played a
> key role in the removal another community-(s)elected trustee:
>
> Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I suggested James’ removal.
>
>
> In so doing, you perpetrated perhaps the most brazen and unjustified
> *political *act in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation. What could be
> more political than pursuing the removal of your fellow appointee?
>
> Your claim to want to avoid politics rings hollow. If you want to be a
> political operative, that's fine -- there is no shame in that. Own it, and
> do it. Follow your conscience, and act in your political capacity to the
> best of your ability. But don't then denounce the very tool you used.
> That's beneath you, and it does nothing to advance the discussion.
>
> I know you are smarter than this. I endorsed your candidacy
> <http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-board-candidate-recommendations/> --
> for the political position of Trustee -- because I believed in your ability
> to grasp the values of the Wikimedia community, build consensus, and lead
> us all in a better direction. You demonstrated your ability to do so
> through your efforts with Wikidata. But your more recent actions have led
> to the premature departure of not one, but *two *people (including
> yourself) entrusted by Wikimedia volunteers to carry this movement forward.
>
> Politics is a tool. It's not good or bad, it just is. When people with
> varying points of view want to work together, you end up with politics.
> Politics can be handled in a way that moves things forward smoothly with
> extensive buy-in, or they can be handled in a way that produces pain and
> impedes progress.
>
> It is becoming vividly clear that Doc James was working in the best
> interests of Wikimedia and WMF throughout his short tenure as a Trustee.
> His efforts may not have been perfect, but they were clearly sincere,
> well-intentioned, and in fact more reflective of reality than any of his
> peers, including yourself.
>
> And yet you led an effort to remove him.
>
> I am disappointed.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
Hoi,
Sorry Pete, there is not.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Lodewijk
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 <[hidden email]>:

> Hoi,
> Sorry Pete, there is not.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
Hi,

I second everything said below. Yann

2016-05-08 5:20 GMT+02:00 Todd Allen <[hidden email]>:

> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Derek V.Giroulle
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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: [hidden email]
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Fæ
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> 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
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> 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
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Fæ
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> 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
>> --
>> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:00 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234