[Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

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

[Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Kevin Gorman
Hi all -

I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an informed
observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and to
a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.

I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who was
actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if Dr.
James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the next
three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to him,
he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
the Wikimedia Foundation.

And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.

----
Kevin Gorman
_______________________________________________
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Kevin Gorman
I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email
wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.

It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right
path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only
trustee actively and aggressively following his fiduciary duties. A
trusteeship can involve an intense time committment, and is a volunteer
role; there is no fault, no flaw in a trustee not universally actively and
aggressively following their fiduciary duties at all time.  But I've been
talking with WMF and ex-WMF employees for months before this eruption, had
a pretty thorough idea of what it was about, and had a pretty solid feeling
that it was the wrong thing to do even before it happened.

James' actions retained valuable Foundation employees that would of
otherwise left, and there are yet other valuable Foundation employees that
would likely have stayed had he not been removed over the issue.  Not all
trustees have the available time to be exemplary trustees at all times, and
sometimes people just make the wrong call - I will readily confess that at
another organization (~$20m org,) there were times when I both didn't have
time to dedicate to be an exemplary trustee, and also times when I just
made the wrong call.  However, this is a situation where Jame's was acting
as an exemplar and was removed for it.  That is not intended to denigrate
the work of most other trustees, but it's not a good situation either.
Removing a community selected trustee who was acting as an exemplar
*because* he was acting as an exemplar is not a good thing.  One of the
first solid steps towards rebuilding community trust would be reinstating
James.

----
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
> threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an informed
> observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and to
> a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
> unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
> members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
> on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
> trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
> trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
>
> I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who
> was actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if
> Dr. James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the
> next three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to him,
> he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
> the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
_______________________________________________
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Comet styles
Well the keyword in "trustees" is the word "Trust" and as far as i can
see James was the ONLY one that was forthcoming with what happened
back in December, the others decided to keep their mouth shut and let
it slide which obviously, made it worse and out of control.....The
community has over the years selected a few BoT members that weren't
really that good, including some recently but James has been an
exception if we can get the ONLY Board of Trustee that the community
TRUSTS back on board, its a win for the community..

It was a really 'sly' move by the BoT to select someone else in his
place even before the fire died down..so yes, even if the current
members of the Board do not trust him, WE the community  DO...thats
all that matters.

On 2/27/16, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email
> wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.
>
> It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right
> path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only
> trustee actively and aggressively following his fiduciary duties. A
> trusteeship can involve an intense time committment, and is a volunteer
> role; there is no fault, no flaw in a trustee not universally actively and
> aggressively following their fiduciary duties at all time.  But I've been
> talking with WMF and ex-WMF employees for months before this eruption, had
> a pretty thorough idea of what it was about, and had a pretty solid feeling
> that it was the wrong thing to do even before it happened.
>
> James' actions retained valuable Foundation employees that would of
> otherwise left, and there are yet other valuable Foundation employees that
> would likely have stayed had he not been removed over the issue.  Not all
> trustees have the available time to be exemplary trustees at all times, and
> sometimes people just make the wrong call - I will readily confess that at
> another organization (~$20m org,) there were times when I both didn't have
> time to dedicate to be an exemplary trustee, and also times when I just
> made the wrong call.  However, this is a situation where Jame's was acting
> as an exemplar and was removed for it.  That is not intended to denigrate
> the work of most other trustees, but it's not a good situation either.
> Removing a community selected trustee who was acting as an exemplar
> *because* he was acting as an exemplar is not a good thing.  One of the
> first solid steps towards rebuilding community trust would be reinstating
> James.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all -
>>
>> I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
>> threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an informed
>> observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and
>> to
>> a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
>> unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
>> members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
>> on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
>> trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
>> trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
>>
>> I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who
>> was actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if
>> Dr. James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the
>> next three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
>> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to
>> him,
>> he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
>> the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
>>
>> ----
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>


--
Cometstyles

_______________________________________________
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Lodewijk
While reinstating James Heilman (or rather, appointing him as replacement
of Arnnon - I am assuming this is your suggestion?) may be a decision that
is popular with a significant part of the community, I am uncertain how
productive such a move would be. Especially now there is no more ED, I
don't know if the board would be helped with an internal struggle (which,
given the temperatures around James' removal, is very likely to happen).
Sorry James, I like you a lot as a person, and I appreciate your boldness
and consistent banging on doors - but I suspect your guts will also tell
you that this is true. This is of course a different story if the board
were to come forward themselves that they would /like/ him back on the
board, because of who he is and what he brings (they know what they're
getting themselves into).

I'm afraid that for the time being, James' board membership is best
considered water under the bridge. If we can learn from it, we should
though. Someone suggested on a relevant Facebook thread to organise a
discussion between James and some willing board members to work out what
exactly happened, what were the causes etc. It might be a constructive
conversation if both parties are willing to join, and from that we could
learn lessons for the future. Because no matter how you turn it, if a board
feels the need to remove one of its members, it is a failure of the board
as a body. Because they didn't manage to get a constructive working
relationship with this member. And I hope that the board can learn from
that, and improve its processes.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Comet styles <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well the keyword in "trustees" is the word "Trust" and as far as i can
> see James was the ONLY one that was forthcoming with what happened
> back in December, the others decided to keep their mouth shut and let
> it slide which obviously, made it worse and out of control.....The
> community has over the years selected a few BoT members that weren't
> really that good, including some recently but James has been an
> exception if we can get the ONLY Board of Trustee that the community
> TRUSTS back on board, its a win for the community..
>
> It was a really 'sly' move by the BoT to select someone else in his
> place even before the fire died down..so yes, even if the current
> members of the Board do not trust him, WE the community  DO...thats
> all that matters.
>
> On 2/27/16, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email
> > wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.
> >
> > It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right
> > path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only
> > trustee actively and aggressively following his fiduciary duties. A
> > trusteeship can involve an intense time committment, and is a volunteer
> > role; there is no fault, no flaw in a trustee not universally actively
> and
> > aggressively following their fiduciary duties at all time.  But I've been
> > talking with WMF and ex-WMF employees for months before this eruption,
> had
> > a pretty thorough idea of what it was about, and had a pretty solid
> feeling
> > that it was the wrong thing to do even before it happened.
> >
> > James' actions retained valuable Foundation employees that would of
> > otherwise left, and there are yet other valuable Foundation employees
> that
> > would likely have stayed had he not been removed over the issue.  Not all
> > trustees have the available time to be exemplary trustees at all times,
> and
> > sometimes people just make the wrong call - I will readily confess that
> at
> > another organization (~$20m org,) there were times when I both didn't
> have
> > time to dedicate to be an exemplary trustee, and also times when I just
> > made the wrong call.  However, this is a situation where Jame's was
> acting
> > as an exemplar and was removed for it.  That is not intended to denigrate
> > the work of most other trustees, but it's not a good situation either.
> > Removing a community selected trustee who was acting as an exemplar
> > *because* he was acting as an exemplar is not a good thing.  One of the
> > first solid steps towards rebuilding community trust would be reinstating
> > James.
> >
> > ----
> > Kevin Gorman
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all -
> >>
> >> I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
> >> threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an
> informed
> >> observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and
> >> to
> >> a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
> >> unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
> >> members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him
> back
> >> on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
> >> trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
> >> trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
> >>
> >> I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who
> >> was actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that
> if
> >> Dr. James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the
> >> next three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman
> as
> >> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to
> >> him,
> >> he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests
> of
> >> the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >>
> >> And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Kevin Gorman
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
> --
> Cometstyles
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

John Mark Vandenberg
If the board can not back up Jimmy's assertion he has removed for cause, I
am pretty confident the community will 'select' James again, just as soon
as they are given an opportunity.

--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Vi to
Reinstatement *now* would be an extra drama. The board must simply be
ready to see him "selected" again by the community.

Those events opened almost every door and every window of our ecosystem:
focusing our attention on "names" is a waste of time now. Now it's time
to focus on strategy, ideas and architecture.

Vito

Il 27/02/2016 11:35, John Mark Vandenberg ha scritto:

> If the board can not back up Jimmy's assertion he has removed for cause, I
> am pretty confident the community will 'select' James again, just as soon
> as they are given an opportunity.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
> _______________________________________________
> 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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Kevin Gorman
While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up,
the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other
politely in public for the best part of two months.  I don't think it's
realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was, and
expect that the BoT would function properly again with James back in
place.  Keeping in mind his former position as a community selected trustee
has already been filled with Maria Sefidari, at any rate.

This is, of course, assuming that James even wishes to go back.

Cheers,
Craig

On 27 February 2016 at 10:51, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
> threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an informed
> observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and to
> a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
> unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
> members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
> on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
> trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
> trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
>
> I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who was
> actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if Dr.
> James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the next
> three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to him,
> he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
> the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
> _______________________________________________
> 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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Fæ
On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up,
> the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other
> politely in public for the best part of two months.  I don't think it's
> realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was, and
> expect that the BoT would function properly again with James back in
> place.  Keeping in mind his former position as a community selected trustee
> has already been filled with Maria Sefidari, at any rate.

Correction: Maria Sefidari was a "candidate for community selection",
she was not selected by the community but appointed using an post
election invented procedure for political convenience. If Maria wishes
to become a community selected board member she would need to *win an
election*, until that time she is in reality an appointed member.

I hope that Maria will run for a proper election at the earliest
opportunity. She was a good candidate and would be a better
representative if correctly elected.

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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Craig Franklin
Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed
to the seat vacated by James Heilman:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081540.html

And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an
election.  Unless the relevant authorities in Florida have overturned
María's appointment and I have not heard about it, she is sitting in the
seat formerly occupied by James.

I don't disagree that it would be a good thing to have a formally agreed
procedure on how to handle vacancies that might arise in these
community-selected seats, but that doesn't change the reality that we must
deal with here and now.

Cheers,
Craig

On 27 February 2016 at 21:47, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up,
> > the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other
> > politely in public for the best part of two months.  I don't think it's
> > realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was,
> and
> > expect that the BoT would function properly again with James back in
> > place.  Keeping in mind his former position as a community selected
> trustee
> > has already been filled with Maria Sefidari, at any rate.
>
> Correction: Maria Sefidari was a "candidate for community selection",
> she was not selected by the community but appointed using an post
> election invented procedure for political convenience. If Maria wishes
> to become a community selected board member she would need to *win an
> election*, until that time she is in reality an appointed member.
>
> I hope that Maria will run for a proper election at the earliest
> opportunity. She was a good candidate and would be a better
> representative if correctly elected.
>
> 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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
It may be that at this point, reinstating James would not be a terribly
feasible idea, even if it is a nice thought. And, well, it's a volunteer
position. I wouldn't blame him at all if he's no longer even willing to
serve in that role.

I think, however, that the suggestions that have been put forth for a
neutral outside review of the situation are long overdue. And the Board
also needs to seriously reconsider what was (not) communicated when the
situation occurred. Essentially, we got a load of say-nothing PR garbage,
not a frank and thorough explanation, of why a trustee overwhelmingly voted
for by the community had been involuntarily removed without consulting that
same community.

I think there are a few points that need to be thought through. First, it
needs to be clarified what really happened. Jimmy has publicly and bluntly
accused James of lying about the circumstances of his departure, but has
also steadfastly refused to say what he considers the truth to be and why.
Having been accused that way, James has every right to defend himself, but
the entire Board has steadfastly refused to say what they see the truth as
actually being, only releasing PR gibberish that said absolutely nothing.
If James was calling attention to serious problems at the Foundation and
doing everything he could to find out more about them, well, I think it's
pretty clearly turned out that he was in fact right. If that's the case, he
was in fact fulfilling his duty to look after the interests of the WMF. And
if James were acting with some kind of malfeasance (which I consider highly
unlikely, but more as a hypothetical for if such a thing ever did occur),
we need to know that, too, because chances are very good that otherwise,
we'll elect him again by a landslide if he chooses to run again. I'm sure
everyone knows the end of the story if that happens and the Board refuses
to seat him.

Secondly, I think the Board needs to hold a frank and open review of its
processes around dismissing trustees, especially community-selected ones.
Even if it's not technically legally required to consult the community
before the fact or frankly inform them why a decision was made after, is
relying on a legal technicality to do an end-run around the community
election process an appropriate way of handling things? I think that
question deserves careful consideration.

Additionally, I think it needs to be considered whether a formal apology is
owed. Even if too much water has passed under the bridge for reinstatement
to be workable, saying "Hey, we're sorry, you actually brought up valid
concerns even if we didn't agree with your methods at the time" might be a
very good step toward the healing process. (If that's actually true, of
course.) If the Board shot the messenger rather than addressing serious
problems (and, well, that's what a lot of us think), that needs to be
candidly addressed.

And finally, I think the communication style in itself needs to be
reexamined. A lot of trustees come from corporate backgrounds where that
type of opaque, "nothing to see here folks, move along" style of
communication is acceptable and expected. Wikimedians generally expect
better than that, and I think we should expect better than that. Ducking
and weaving around direct questions breeds mistrust; sunlight is the best
disinfectant. If you don't think your actions would be defensible if you
publicly and frankly say why you undertook them, you probably need to
rethink them. There will of course be times that some information will be
necessarily private, but that should be considered an exception that must
be well-justified, not the rule. And if that is the case, don't try to spin
and obfuscate with a bunch of PR junk, just frankly say "We (can't|won't)
tell you that because _________."

The volunteer community does need the WMF. After all, someone's got to keep
the servers running, and handle things like legal services and the millions
of dollars that flow through the organization. But the WMF needs the
volunteer community too, or it may as well just shut the lights off on the
way out. Each side should see the other as an equal and necessary partner
and as an ally towards the common aim of creating the best free and open
educational resources possible.

Right now, it seems that a lot of the community sees the WMF as an
overbearing would-be "owner" of the projects that needs to be pushed back
at every turn, and it seems the WMF sees the community as a nuisance to be
stiff-armed out of the way if it dares to get in the way of some grand
strategy. That's not a healthy dynamic, and we don't fix it without open,
fully transparent, and honest communication.

Well, that turned out longer than I expected, but I can't really find any
parts that I don't think need to be said. I think we're at a unique
opportunity to reexamine how the WMF can best serve the goals of the
movement, and what its role should be in doing so. I think we're also at a
point to consider what exactly the Board's role should be in that, what its
priorities should be, and how it should operate under difficult
circumstances. Obviously, what happened this time was not optimal. Please
keep the lines of communication open as you move forward with any reviews
and reconsiderations. For better or worse, the perception will be that if
you're not talking about it, you aren't thinking about it and don't care.
_______________________________________________
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Fæ
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
Yes, we are in agreement. Maria is an 'Appointed Trustee', not a
'Community Selected Trustee'. So the number of 'Appointed Trustees'
went up by one, the number of 'Community Selected Trustees' went down
by one.

For political convenience, the WMF board is spinning her seat on the
board as if she were a Community Selected Trustee, but it's obviously
not true unless we start redefining the plain English meaning of
words. The result is a board with a democratic deficit, and the way
most trustee boards with elected members handle this is to ensure that
the appointed replacement will be obliged to stand for election at the
earliest opportunity.

I welcome a procedure like this to be written up for the WMF board so
that we can avoid the difficulty of vacated seats in a more credible
way. The current system of bartering and balancing lists of pros and
cons between sitting trustees, their lawyers, and a volunteer election
committee that is appointed by the Board of Trustees, is unhealthy and
it is a fantasy to imagine that the end result can be called
democratic.

It would be a comfort if Maria Sefidari would confirm that she will be
running for an election by offering up her seat at the earliest
possible opportunity, rather than gripping on to it based on the
tenure granted by James Heilman's democratic selection. We voted in an
election where the winner of the election was the selected candidate,
shifting the meaning of what our votes were for after the election, so
the board can later on pick and chose from a list of candidates that
they find to their political tastes, is not the way we want to run
transparent and credible elections.

Fae

On 27 February 2016 at 12:09, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed
> to the seat vacated by James Heilman:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081540.html
>
> And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an
> election.  Unless the relevant authorities in Florida have overturned
> María's appointment and I have not heard about it, she is sitting in the
> seat formerly occupied by James.
>
> I don't disagree that it would be a good thing to have a formally agreed
> procedure on how to handle vacancies that might arise in these
> community-selected seats, but that doesn't change the reality that we must
> deal with here and now.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 27 February 2016 at 21:47, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make
>> > up,
>> > the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other
>> > politely in public for the best part of two months.  I don't think it's
>> > realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was,
>> > and
>> > expect that the BoT would function properly again with James back in
>> > place.  Keeping in mind his former position as a community selected
>> > trustee
>> > has already been filled with Maria Sefidari, at any rate.
>>
>> Correction: Maria Sefidari was a "candidate for community selection",
>> she was not selected by the community but appointed using an post
>> election invented procedure for political convenience. If Maria wishes
>> to become a community selected board member she would need to *win an
>> election*, until that time she is in reality an appointed member.
>>
>> I hope that Maria will run for a proper election at the earliest
>> opportunity. She was a good candidate and would be a better
>> representative if correctly elected.
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
>



--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

jmh649
In reply to this post by Kevin Gorman
I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for
greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I
plan to run in the next community (s)election.

Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF
back together again and I would like to thank the current board for taking
that step. We have a number of C-levels who are able to do an excellent job
as interim ED. I will post more about this soon but am just heading out to
ski.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Kevin Gorman
Hi all -

Maria's appointment should be viewed as a replacement to that of Arnnon
Geshuri.  I like her, and I think she'd stand a fair chance in a community
election, but she is not and cannot be described as a community selected
trustee at present.  It's perfectly possible for boards to have members on
it that don't get along, even of large organizations.  I've been a trustee
of a sizable organization and had significant disagreements with at least
one other trustee - more significant than those between Jimmy and James.
The fact that there is animosity between board members isn't a barrier to
having a productive board.  It's disingenious, at best, to say that James
was dismissed because he spoke out about the knowledge engine, etc.  James
had conversations with employees not related to the knowledge engine, but
related to other significant issues at the WMF.  It's best practice to
inform the ED when board talks to staff, but only if informing the ED would
not harm the purpose of those conversations - and in this case it would.
I'm also going to state here that I've had a number of conversations with
employees in the same time frame James was having them, and that combined
with other details is why I am absolutely convinced they were necessary.

One of the first leveled and oftened returned to statements as to why James
was removed was that he had conversations with employees that were
inappropriate.  Every employee who has come forward stating they had
conversations with James has stated that those conversations were
necessary, and exactly the type of conversation that a trustee should be
having when the situation has gotten to a point where they are,
unfortunately, necessary.  James had the trust of both the community and
many WMF employees, which is why so many people who felt they needed to
talk went to him.  I have no doubt that many other trustees were doing
important less visible work, many probably even about the same problem, but
James was handling an element of it - direct communication with employees -
that was absolutely necessary for the continued success of the Foundation,
even if all other aspects had been handled.

It's unfortunate that James and Jimmy have gotten in to it in public, but -
I hate to say this, but there's no other way around it - Jimmy should be
embarassed.  He's been exceptionally disrespectful of a respected community
member, but worse than that, he's flat out lied on multiple occasions about
the situation involving James.  If someone challenges me on that statement,
as I have time, I will compile a list of diffs and archived emails in which
he's done so. If the situation between James and Jimmy is such that a
healthy board dynamic with both as trustees is not possible, then frankly
Jimmy should step down, or at a minimum give up the concept of a Founder's
seat, convert it to a community elected seat, stay on as a board member
until the next elections, and then run as an ordinary community member in
the next set of elections.

I think it should also be stated for the public record that Jimmy was the
individual who pushed for Lila's stay to be extended (and I like Lila, I
really do,) and for trustees to not speak with the day to day WMF employees
that have formed the backbone of the WMF side of the movement.  I also
don't know who put the FAQ together, but want to point out that it's not
factually accurate to say that James cannot run in the next elections, as
at least one official FAQ stated at one point.  That would be true if he
was a community ELECTED board member removed for cause.  He wasn't, so the
relevant provision doesn't apply, and he's eligible to run again as soon as
there are faux-elections again.

----
Kevin Gorman

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:26 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for
> greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I
> plan to run in the next community (s)election.
>
> Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF
> back together again and I would like to thank the current board for taking
> that step. We have a number of C-levels who are able to do an excellent job
> as interim ED. I will post more about this soon but am just heading out to
> ski.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Ziko van Dijk-3
Hello,

Thanks for the contributions.

I can imagine that it is reasonable
* that the WMF Board deems it impossible to work together with a
specific board member;
* that the WMF Board deems it impossible to publish the reasons for the removal;
* that the WMF Board calls the removed board member to be ineligible
for future elections.

What my problem is, is that the WMF Board takes all these decisions by
itself. The WMF Board acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner in
one organ. The Dutch would say: The butcher is reviewing his own meat.
It becomes easy to criticise such a board.

The present situation is unfair to the removed member who is blamed in
public without a public information about the reason. The removed
board member also can only appeal to the very organ that removed him.

The present situation is furthermore a devastating signal to the
voters. The removal decreases the value of the community elections and
makes all board seats questionable. The ultimate election is made by
the WMF Board, not the community, it seems.

As solutions I can imagine
* to create an arbitration organ for these decisions; or
* to let the voters decide whether they want to send the removed board
member back to the board.

Kind regards
Ziko




2016-02-27 20:02 GMT+01:00 Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]>:

> Hi all -
>
> Maria's appointment should be viewed as a replacement to that of Arnnon
> Geshuri.  I like her, and I think she'd stand a fair chance in a community
> election, but she is not and cannot be described as a community selected
> trustee at present.  It's perfectly possible for boards to have members on
> it that don't get along, even of large organizations.  I've been a trustee
> of a sizable organization and had significant disagreements with at least
> one other trustee - more significant than those between Jimmy and James.
> The fact that there is animosity between board members isn't a barrier to
> having a productive board.  It's disingenious, at best, to say that James
> was dismissed because he spoke out about the knowledge engine, etc.  James
> had conversations with employees not related to the knowledge engine, but
> related to other significant issues at the WMF.  It's best practice to
> inform the ED when board talks to staff, but only if informing the ED would
> not harm the purpose of those conversations - and in this case it would.
> I'm also going to state here that I've had a number of conversations with
> employees in the same time frame James was having them, and that combined
> with other details is why I am absolutely convinced they were necessary.
>
> One of the first leveled and oftened returned to statements as to why James
> was removed was that he had conversations with employees that were
> inappropriate.  Every employee who has come forward stating they had
> conversations with James has stated that those conversations were
> necessary, and exactly the type of conversation that a trustee should be
> having when the situation has gotten to a point where they are,
> unfortunately, necessary.  James had the trust of both the community and
> many WMF employees, which is why so many people who felt they needed to
> talk went to him.  I have no doubt that many other trustees were doing
> important less visible work, many probably even about the same problem, but
> James was handling an element of it - direct communication with employees -
> that was absolutely necessary for the continued success of the Foundation,
> even if all other aspects had been handled.
>
> It's unfortunate that James and Jimmy have gotten in to it in public, but -
> I hate to say this, but there's no other way around it - Jimmy should be
> embarassed.  He's been exceptionally disrespectful of a respected community
> member, but worse than that, he's flat out lied on multiple occasions about
> the situation involving James.  If someone challenges me on that statement,
> as I have time, I will compile a list of diffs and archived emails in which
> he's done so. If the situation between James and Jimmy is such that a
> healthy board dynamic with both as trustees is not possible, then frankly
> Jimmy should step down, or at a minimum give up the concept of a Founder's
> seat, convert it to a community elected seat, stay on as a board member
> until the next elections, and then run as an ordinary community member in
> the next set of elections.
>
> I think it should also be stated for the public record that Jimmy was the
> individual who pushed for Lila's stay to be extended (and I like Lila, I
> really do,) and for trustees to not speak with the day to day WMF employees
> that have formed the backbone of the WMF side of the movement.  I also
> don't know who put the FAQ together, but want to point out that it's not
> factually accurate to say that James cannot run in the next elections, as
> at least one official FAQ stated at one point.  That would be true if he
> was a community ELECTED board member removed for cause.  He wasn't, so the
> relevant provision doesn't apply, and he's eligible to run again as soon as
> there are faux-elections again.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:26 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for
>> greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I
>> plan to run in the next community (s)election.
>>
>> Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF
>> back together again and I would like to thank the current board for taking
>> that step. We have a number of C-levels who are able to do an excellent job
>> as interim ED. I will post more about this soon but am just heading out to
>> ski.
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

SarahSV
Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to
James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1]

Apparently referring to James's removal, Jimbo has called for "full
publication of the details." [2]

Given that both parties have requested transparency, and that James seems
to regard that email as significant, is anything preventing its release?

Sarah


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=700371563&oldid=700371273

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=707188382

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the contributions.
>
> I can imagine that it is reasonable
> * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to work together with a
> specific board member;
> * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to publish the reasons for the
> removal;
> * that the WMF Board calls the removed board member to be ineligible
> for future elections.
>
> What my problem is, is that the WMF Board takes all these decisions by
> itself. The WMF Board acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner in
> one organ. The Dutch would say: The butcher is reviewing his own meat.
> It becomes easy to criticise such a board.
>
> The present situation is unfair to the removed member who is blamed in
> public without a public information about the reason. The removed
> board member also can only appeal to the very organ that removed him.
>
> The present situation is furthermore a devastating signal to the
> voters. The removal decreases the value of the community elections and
> makes all board seats questionable. The ultimate election is made by
> the WMF Board, not the community, it seems.
>
> As solutions I can imagine
> * to create an arbitration organ for these decisions; or
> * to let the voters decide whether they want to send the removed board
> member back to the board.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> 2016-02-27 20:02 GMT+01:00 Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]>:
> > Hi all -
> >
> > Maria's appointment should be viewed as a replacement to that of Arnnon
> > Geshuri.  I like her, and I think she'd stand a fair chance in a
> community
> > election, but she is not and cannot be described as a community selected
> > trustee at present.  It's perfectly possible for boards to have members
> on
> > it that don't get along, even of large organizations.  I've been a
> trustee
> > of a sizable organization and had significant disagreements with at least
> > one other trustee - more significant than those between Jimmy and James.
> > The fact that there is animosity between board members isn't a barrier to
> > having a productive board.  It's disingenious, at best, to say that James
> > was dismissed because he spoke out about the knowledge engine, etc.
> James
> > had conversations with employees not related to the knowledge engine, but
> > related to other significant issues at the WMF.  It's best practice to
> > inform the ED when board talks to staff, but only if informing the ED
> would
> > not harm the purpose of those conversations - and in this case it would.
> > I'm also going to state here that I've had a number of conversations with
> > employees in the same time frame James was having them, and that combined
> > with other details is why I am absolutely convinced they were necessary.
> >
> > One of the first leveled and oftened returned to statements as to why
> James
> > was removed was that he had conversations with employees that were
> > inappropriate.  Every employee who has come forward stating they had
> > conversations with James has stated that those conversations were
> > necessary, and exactly the type of conversation that a trustee should be
> > having when the situation has gotten to a point where they are,
> > unfortunately, necessary.  James had the trust of both the community and
> > many WMF employees, which is why so many people who felt they needed to
> > talk went to him.  I have no doubt that many other trustees were doing
> > important less visible work, many probably even about the same problem,
> but
> > James was handling an element of it - direct communication with
> employees -
> > that was absolutely necessary for the continued success of the
> Foundation,
> > even if all other aspects had been handled.
> >
> > It's unfortunate that James and Jimmy have gotten in to it in public,
> but -
> > I hate to say this, but there's no other way around it - Jimmy should be
> > embarassed.  He's been exceptionally disrespectful of a respected
> community
> > member, but worse than that, he's flat out lied on multiple occasions
> about
> > the situation involving James.  If someone challenges me on that
> statement,
> > as I have time, I will compile a list of diffs and archived emails in
> which
> > he's done so. If the situation between James and Jimmy is such that a
> > healthy board dynamic with both as trustees is not possible, then frankly
> > Jimmy should step down, or at a minimum give up the concept of a
> Founder's
> > seat, convert it to a community elected seat, stay on as a board member
> > until the next elections, and then run as an ordinary community member in
> > the next set of elections.
> >
> > I think it should also be stated for the public record that Jimmy was the
> > individual who pushed for Lila's stay to be extended (and I like Lila, I
> > really do,) and for trustees to not speak with the day to day WMF
> employees
> > that have formed the backbone of the WMF side of the movement.  I also
> > don't know who put the FAQ together, but want to point out that it's not
> > factually accurate to say that James cannot run in the next elections, as
> > at least one official FAQ stated at one point.  That would be true if he
> > was a community ELECTED board member removed for cause.  He wasn't, so
> the
> > relevant provision doesn't apply, and he's eligible to run again as soon
> as
> > there are faux-elections again.
> >
> > ----
> > Kevin Gorman
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:26 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for
> >> greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I
> >> plan to run in the next community (s)election.
> >>
> >> Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF
> >> back together again and I would like to thank the current board for
> taking
> >> that step. We have a number of C-levels who are able to do an excellent
> job
> >> as interim ED. I will post more about this soon but am just heading out
> to
> >> ski.
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Heilman
> >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >>
> >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

Jimmy Wales-4
On 2/27/16 5:28 PM, SarahSV wrote:
> Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to
> James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1]

It isn't primarily about reasons for the removal, and in fact only
partly touches on that topic.  It's primarily about why I think he
should apologize to the community, and reviewing it now, I would
actually add several more reasons.

There are board discussions ongoing about more information being
released - and I hope those are productive.  Within a few days time,
I'll know whether it's ok for me to publish this private email - it
still touches on matters that are not public.

It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by Patricio to
get James to agree to a joint statement.  It is an encouragement to
James to be honest with the community about what happened.  It is not a
full explanation of what happened - he already knew that.

--Jimbo



_______________________________________________
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>