[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
223 messages Options
1234567 ... 12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Todd Allen
I don't think it's a "silly idea" to immediately notify 1800+ voters that
they've been overruled by 8 people. I think it's something the Board
should've been prepared to do at once, with a full and complete rationale.
Instead, we keep hearing patronizing "Oh, we'll give you more information
sometime", with no indication of just when "sometime" might be.

Under the bylaws, James' removal was allowed, and if those comply with
Florida law (which, above, is somewhat doubtful) was legal. That doesn't
mean justified. It's legal for me to go around calling people horrible
names, but that's not appropriate or justifiable just because I have the
legal right to do it.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM, olatunde isaac <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <[hidden email]>Date: Wed,
> 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>         [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
>    2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
>    3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
>    4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
>    5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
>    6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
> From: Nathan <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
> the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
> fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
> about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
> that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
> uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
> to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
>
> James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
> told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
> complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
> silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
> preferred to control the narrative themselves.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +0000
> From: Fæ <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to
> make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".
>
> The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be
> given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own
> comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes
> played out.
>
> Fae
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100
> From: Thomas Goldammer <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CAL0e-KWJ6L=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> @Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the
> fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you
> out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.
>
> The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for
> the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned
> ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately
> and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there,
> and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's
> really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick.
>
> Th.
>
> 2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
>
> > "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning
> in
> > the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> > *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> > do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> > responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board
> member
> > fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be
> made
> > about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29
> > December 2015 (UTC)"
> >
> > Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for
> revealing
> > that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
> > uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
> > to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
> >
> > James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and
> then
> > told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
> > complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
> > silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
> > preferred to control the narrative themselves.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300
> From: Anna Torres <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015
> Message-ID:
>         <CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Dear all,
>
> Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual
> Memorial 2015 <http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/> regarding WMAR
> programs and activities.
>
> In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main
> programs and actions taken during 2015.
>
> Hope you all enjoy it!
>
> Hugs and happy new year!
>
>
> --
> Anna Torres Adell
> Directora Ejecutiva
> *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:51:13 -0800
> From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CAF=dyJjegoDF4nrUizCSs+RhfQ_HWM54V=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
> may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
>
> (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
> of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
> of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
> but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
> here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
> can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
> similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
> sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
> (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> organization.
>
> It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
>
> Pine
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:09:49 +0100
> From: Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CACf6BesausXMnn40D8OTP+kiaZvDE01MS3i+synN=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the
> what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that
> happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly.
> It may also be that it was disastrous.
>
> transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with
> 'quick', as was pointed out by some.
>
> Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for
> discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The
> transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the
> board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an
> open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal)
> membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have
> influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often
> say that incidents make bad policy.
>
> At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not
> quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not
> more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large
> also makes a different organisational structure.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items
> that
> > may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
> >
> > (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> > (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> > composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> > (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> > members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> > (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> > transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far
> more
> > of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> > includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> > government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> > this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that
> level
> > of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in
> public,
> > but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> > private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work,
> but
> > here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does
> that
> > can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself
> to
> > similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> > uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is
> not a
> > sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> > Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> > Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board
> meetings
> > (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> > level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> > organization.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation
> evolves.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
> *********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Isaac Olatunde
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
>
He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting...
He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting.
After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't
know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't
have done the same in his place.
_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Kevin Gorman
As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have
trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.  The
board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of
two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that
board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to be
quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in
the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing
by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation where
the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board out
of touch with the community it is intended to serve.

Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would
hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the
time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada
and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and it's
concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian as
James.

Best,
KG
-sent from mobile.


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> override
> > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
> where
> > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth
> in
> > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> > likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and
> will
> > probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> > remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> > community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> > removal.
> > The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> > board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> > James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Olatunde Isaac.
> > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
> >
> >
> He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting...
> He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting.
> After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't
> know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't
> have done the same in his place.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Robert Rohde
Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he
expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.

-Robert Rohde

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
> there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have
> trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.  The
> board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
> member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
> removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
> better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of
> two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
> good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
> remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that
> board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
> I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
> allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to be
> quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in
> the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing
> by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation where
> the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
> Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
> Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board out
> of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
>
> Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
> shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would
> hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the
> time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
> Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
> Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada
> and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
> wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and it's
> concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
> remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian as
> James.
>
> Best,
> KG
> -sent from mobile.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing
> as
> > > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> > > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> > override
> > > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
> > where
> > > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote
> of
> > > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth
> > in
> > > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> > > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > > I understand that majority of the community members who elected James
> are
> > > likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and
> > will
> > > probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> > > remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> > > community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported
> his
> > > removal.
> > > The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from
> the
> > > board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> > > James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Olatunde Isaac.
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
> > >
> > >
> > He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting...
> > He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting.
> > After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't
> > know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't
> > have done the same in his place.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Kevin Gorman
"For cause" can mean a lot of things - everything from getting drunk and
plowing in to a crowd to embezzling money, to simply holding consistently
different opinions than the rest of the board and continually voicing them.
We won't know much more until the board statement (although, again, I'm
surprised comms weren't pre-prepped,) but this is a really surprising
situation, and I really hope the board makes a clear statement that
justifies the removal beyond a shadow of a doubt.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he
> expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
> > there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have
> > trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.
> The
> > board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
> > member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
> > removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
> > better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of
> > two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
> > good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
> > remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that
> > board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
> > I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
> > allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to
> be
> > quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in
> > the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing
> > by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation
> where
> > the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
> > Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
> > Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board
> out
> > of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
> >
> > Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
> > shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would
> > hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the
> > time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
> > Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
> > Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada
> > and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
> > wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and
> it's
> > concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
> > remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian
> as
> > James.
> >
> > Best,
> > KG
> > -sent from mobile.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still
> ongoing
> > as
> > > > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is
> a
> > > > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> > > override
> > > > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
> > > where
> > > > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > > > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > > > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority
> vote
> > of
> > > > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set
> forth
> > > in
> > > > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based
> on
> > > > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > > > I understand that majority of the community members who elected James
> > are
> > > > likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it
> and
> > > will
> > > > probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> > > > remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> > > > community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported
> > his
> > > > removal.
> > > > The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from
> > the
> > > > board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> > > > James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Olatunde Isaac.
> > > > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
> > > >
> > > >
> > > He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a
> meeting...
> > > He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board
> meeting.
> > > After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't
> > > know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't
> > > have done the same in his place.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Anna Stillwell
 James,

We’ve never spoken. I don’t know you personally, but I do know your
reputation throughout the movement. It is stellar. You are reported to be a
man of coherent and consistent principles.

I am writing to thank you for your years of service and your amazing
contributions to the projects thus far. I was so impressed with the work
that you've done on "ebola content" and translating it for the languages in
the geographies most impacted.

I don’t know what happened, but this has to be difficult for you. My
thoughts are with you.

Warmly,
/a

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "For cause" can mean a lot of things - everything from getting drunk and
> plowing in to a crowd to embezzling money, to simply holding consistently
> different opinions than the rest of the board and continually voicing them.
> We won't know much more until the board statement (although, again, I'm
> surprised comms weren't pre-prepped,) but this is a really surprising
> situation, and I really hope the board makes a clear statement that
> justifies the removal beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he
> > expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
> >
> > -Robert Rohde
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
> > > there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I
> have
> > > trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.
> > The
> > > board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
> > > member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that
> > > removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there
> > > better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will
> of
> > > two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn
> > > good reason is a significant error.  To be honest, since the motion to
> > > remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising
> that
> > > board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out.
> > > I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve
> > > allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to
> > be
> > > quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust
> in
> > > the Wikimedia movement.  And if doesn't involve allegations of
> wrongdoing
> > > by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation
> > where
> > > the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by
> > > Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable.
> > > Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board
> > out
> > > of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
> > >
> > > Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly
> > > shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I
> would
> > > hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending
> the
> > > time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished
> > > Wikipedian.  Doc James is one of the most active contributors to
> > > Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia
> Canada
> > > and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other
> > > wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and
> > it's
> > > concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to
> > > remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian
> > as
> > > James.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > KG
> > > -sent from mobile.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
> > > [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still
> > ongoing
> > > as
> > > > > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It
> is
> > a
> > > > > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
> > > > override
> > > > > the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a
> parliament
> > > > where
> > > > > the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> > > > > Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> > > > > “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority
> > vote
> > > of
> > > > > the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set
> > forth
> > > > in
> > > > > Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”.
> Based
> > on
> > > > > this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> > > > > I understand that majority of the community members who elected
> James
> > > are
> > > > > likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it
> > and
> > > > will
> > > > > probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why
> his
> > > > > remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> > > > > community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence
> supported
> > > his
> > > > > removal.
> > > > > The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected
> from
> > > the
> > > > > board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> > > > > James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Olatunde Isaac.
> > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a
> > meeting...
> > > > He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board
> > meeting.
> > > > After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We
> don't
> > > > know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I
> wouldn't
> > > > have done the same in his place.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?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>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Isaac Olatunde
Given the timing (less than a month after the last Board Meeting), and some
of the comments at Jimbo's talk, it seems likely that a special meeting was
called with the question of dismissing James from the Board as a major (and
perhaps only) topic.  However, no one has explicitly said if this was a
special meeting or whether there were any other topics on the Agenda.

Based on James statements, after the vote he was also ejected from the
meeting.  Presumably if the Board wanted to discuss a joint statement or
communication strategy then they could have asked him to stay for that
purpose.  No one has said whether there was any discussion of creating a
joint statement prior to this going public, though Jimbo said that he
wishes that James had waited to make the announcement "in a time and manner
that both his perspective and that of other board members could be
presented fully".  James also said that he had been encouraged to resign
for several weeks, so this clearly wasn't something that occurred as an
emergency with no opportunity to plan at all.

If the Board wanted a joint announcement and James refused, that would be
interesting.  If the Board wanted a joint announcement but neglected to
discuss that with James before ejecting him from the meeting, then that
suggests poor handling by the Board.

-Robert Rohde


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:25 PM, olatunde isaac <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override
> the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where
> the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
> Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
> “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of
> the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in
> Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on
> this bylaw, James remover is justified!
> I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are
> likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will
> probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his
> remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third
> community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his
> removal.
> The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the
> board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
> James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <[hidden email]>Date: Wed,
> 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>         [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
>    2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
>    3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
>    4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
>    5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
>    6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
> From: Nathan <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
> the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
> fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
> about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
> that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
> uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
> to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
>
> James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
> told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
> complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
> silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
> preferred to control the narrative themselves.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +0000
> From: Fæ <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to
> make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".
>
> The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be
> given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own
> comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes
> played out.
>
> Fae
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100
> From: Thomas Goldammer <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CAL0e-KWJ6L=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> @Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the
> fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you
> out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.
>
> The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for
> the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned
> ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately
> and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there,
> and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's
> really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick.
>
> Th.
>
> 2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
>
> > "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning
> in
> > the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> > *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> > do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> > responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board
> member
> > fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be
> made
> > about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29
> > December 2015 (UTC)"
> >
> > Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for
> revealing
> > that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
> > uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
> > to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
> >
> > James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and
> then
> > told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
> > complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
> > silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
> > preferred to control the narrative themselves.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300
> From: Anna Torres <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015
> Message-ID:
>         <CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Dear all,
>
> Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual
> Memorial 2015 <http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/> regarding WMAR
> programs and activities.
>
> In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main
> programs and actions taken during 2015.
>
> Hope you all enjoy it!
>
> Hugs and happy new year!
>
>
> --
> Anna Torres Adell
> Directora Ejecutiva
> *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:51:13 -0800
> From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CAF=dyJjegoDF4nrUizCSs+RhfQ_HWM54V=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
> may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
>
> (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
> of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
> of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
> but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
> here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
> can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
> similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
> sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
> (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> organization.
>
> It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
>
> Pine
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:09:49 +0100
> From: Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> Message-ID:
>         <CACf6BesausXMnn40D8OTP+kiaZvDE01MS3i+synN=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the
> what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that
> happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly.
> It may also be that it was disastrous.
>
> transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with
> 'quick', as was pointed out by some.
>
> Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for
> discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The
> transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the
> board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an
> open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal)
> membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have
> influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often
> say that incidents make bad policy.
>
> At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not
> quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not
> more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large
> also makes a different organisational structure.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items
> that
> > may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
> >
> > (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> > (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> > composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> > (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> > members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> > (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> > transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far
> more
> > of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> > includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> > government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> > this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that
> level
> > of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in
> public,
> > but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> > private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work,
> but
> > here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does
> that
> > can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself
> to
> > similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> > uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is
> not a
> > sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> > Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> > Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board
> meetings
> > (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> > level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> > organization.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation
> evolves.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
> *********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Matthew Flaschen
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:

> there are bigger questions than why like;
>
>     - how can this take place
>     - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>     future,
>     - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>     board
>
>   The Florida statute(
> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other
> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
> or grouping.

IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members
of that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members
at all
(https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP).
  It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the
director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not
apply for the same reason.

To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that
ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all
possible why he was removed.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Anthony Cole
Matt, here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=697407200&oldid=697407110>,
Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.

Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>
>>     - how can this take place
>>     - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>     future,
>>     - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>     board
>>
>>   The Florida statute(
>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>> other
>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>> or grouping.
>>
>
> IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members of
> that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members at
> all (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP).
> It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the
> director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not
> apply for the same reason.
>
> To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that
> ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all
> possible why he was removed.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Patricio Lorente
Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.

I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
this decision as we would in others.

I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.

Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
required to be effective.

As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
direction and strategy.

We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
with the 2015 Elections Committee.

From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
collaboration with him.

Thank you,

                                           Patricio
--
_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Lodewijk
Dear Patricio,

Thank you for your response. However, I don't quite read an explanation in
this email. You elaborate a little bit on process (nothing new or
surprising there), and the only reason I can extract from your email is
this:

"Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were
not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling [Trustee
conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality]"

Are we to expect an actual explanation still with the actual reasons why
this decision was taken? Because this goes little further than the staff
members that 'leave for personal reasons'. When a significant and serious
step like this is taken, to remove a community selected board member, I do
expect a better explanation from the board towards the electorate than
this.

I am looking forward to more - from you, from James or anyone else.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Patricio Lorente <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
>
> I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
> discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
> decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
> of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> this decision as we would in others.
>
> I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
> of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
> this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
>
> Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
> of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
> then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
> to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
> required to be effective.
>
> As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
> important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> direction and strategy.
>
> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
> From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
> of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> collaboration with him.
>
> Thank you,
>
>                                            Patricio
> --
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Andreas Kolbe-2
Patricio,

Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and
how and where it is defined for both current and former members?

Best,
Andreas

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Patricio,
>
> Thank you for your response. However, I don't quite read an explanation in
> this email. You elaborate a little bit on process (nothing new or
> surprising there), and the only reason I can extract from your email is
> this:
>
> "Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were
> not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling [Trustee
> conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality]"
>
> Are we to expect an actual explanation still with the actual reasons why
> this decision was taken? Because this goes little further than the staff
> members that 'leave for personal reasons'. When a significant and serious
> step like this is taken, to remove a community selected board member, I do
> expect a better explanation from the board towards the electorate than
> this.
>
> I am looking forward to more - from you, from James or anyone else.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Patricio Lorente <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> > decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> > Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
> >
> > I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to
> the
> > discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for
> the
> > decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> > and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome
> ahead
> > of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> > together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> > respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> > time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> > duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> > this decision as we would in others.
> >
> > I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a
> difference
> > of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> > other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> > multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> > responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> > Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> > understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> > as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> > essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm
> that
> > this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> > influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
> >
> > Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> > law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered),
> members
> > of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections
> are
> > then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> > the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the
> ability
> > to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working
> environment
> > required to be effective.
> >
> > As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand
> how
> > important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> > want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> > commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> > representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> > change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> > direction and strategy.
> >
> > We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy
> with
> > a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> > information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> > From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> > sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive
> part
> > of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> > collaboration with him.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >                                            Patricio
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Patricio Lorente
Hi Patricio,
a little question to understand.

Does it means that the majority of the board can dismiss the minority
for some reasons?

I understand the effectiveness, but this sentence is a little bit critical.

Kind regards

On 31.12.2015 14:02, Patricio Lorente wrote:

>
> Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
> of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
> then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
> to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
> required to be effective.
>
>

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Matt, here
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=697407200&oldid=697407110>,
> Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.
>
> Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>>
>>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>>
>>>     - how can this take place
>>>     - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>>     future,
>>>     - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>>     board
>>>
>>>   The Florida statute(
>>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>>> other
>>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>>> or grouping.
>>>
>>
>> IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members of
>> that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members at
>> all (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP).
>> It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the
>> director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not
>> apply for the same reason.
>>
>> To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that
>> ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all
>> possible why he was removed.

do the clauses from 617.0808 apply at all - as the bylaws explicitly
specify removal? "Trustees .. are understood to act as fiduciaries
with regard to the Foundation". "The Board will approve candidates who
receive the most votes". " Trustee may be removed, with or without
cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees".  the election page states
it like this: "Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity
to elect three candidates to a two-year term which will expire in
2017." the community is a class in the sense of 617.0808, and would
apply if the bylaws do not specify removal, isn't it?

jimmy wales btw wrote on his talk page "... this was a removal for
cause" and "I do not support any changes to the bylaws around the
composition of the board at this time. There is a very unhealthy and
plainly false view among some in the community that elected board
members are more supportive of the community than appointed. It
actually doesn't turn out that way in practice, and with good reason.
All board members have a fiduciary duty to the organization, which
means that caring about the community - the lifeblood of the
organization - comes naturally to everyone." :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=697407275&oldid=697403591

the whole story reminds me on what josh wrote in the ny times months ago:
The election — a record 5,000 voters turned out, nearly three times
the number from the previous election — was a rebuke to the status
quo; all three incumbents up for re-election were defeated, replaced
by critics of the superprotect measures. Two other members will leave
the 10-member board at the end of this year.
http://nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html

rupert

_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Fæ
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Patricio,
> Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and
> how and where it is defined for both current and former members?
> Best,
> Andreas

Anyone who has had trustee training can answer this. No trustee of any
charity/NGO is under a legally binding confidentiality agreement, for
good ethical reasons. Trustees *must* be free to blow the whistle for
the long term good of the organization without fear of petty civil
proceedings to shut them up. Trustees can *choose* to resolve any
issues whether personal or organizational behind closed doors, but
they are always free to act in a way that follows their ethics, even
though in practice this often means they will resign from the board at
the same time.

Jimmy Wales has seen fit to express his personal views about James in
public in a transparent and honest way; and James and the remaining
trustees are free to do exactly the same thing. There's no "Jimmy
clause" that our movement agreed to.

If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.

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] Announcement about changes to the Board

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Patricio Lorente
Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
or not!?
On 1 Jan 2016 12:03 am, "Patricio Lorente" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
>
> I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
> discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
> decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
> of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> this decision as we would in others.
>
> I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
> of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
> this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
>
> Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
> of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
> then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
> to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
> required to be effective.
>
> As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
> important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> direction and strategy.
>
> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
> From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
> of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> collaboration with him.
>
> Thank you,
>
>                                            Patricio
> --
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Fæ
On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
> board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
> being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
> political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.
>
> Fae

Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would
run at the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately
removed from the board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number
of reasons, but I would seriously consider voting for him this time if
he runs.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Rjd0060 -
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
> or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things,
after what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can
put a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles
you to nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at
McDonalds, it doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't
get you your next job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if
not critical) to the Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called
"community" needs to realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is
piling on in opposition.

--

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Peter Southwood
You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our feet - or not.  The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line, whatever they do is going to annoy somebody.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rjd0060
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for
> cause, or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things, after what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can put a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles you to nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at McDonalds, it doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't get you your next job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if not critical) to the Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called "community" needs to realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is piling on in opposition.

--

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
_______________________________________________
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: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


_______________________________________________
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Rjd0060 -


-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rjd0060
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for
> cause, or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things, after what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can put a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles you to nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at McDonalds, it doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't get you your next job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if not critical) to the Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called "community" needs to realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is piling on in opposition.

--

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
_______________________________________________
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: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


_______________________________________________
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>
1234567 ... 12