Re: [Wikimedia-l] What happened on the Board of Trustees?

[MZMcBride]

Tobias wrote:
>James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do
>things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also
>endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less
>of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work
>in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the
>cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic
>and collective voice to the outside.
>These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to
>the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community
>involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh
>criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community,
>wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and
>tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in
>turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust.
>The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership,
>and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with
>senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James,
>being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open
>review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other
>board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a
>public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps
>inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation,
>so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from
>the board.
>
>This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion
>at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a
>grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process
>of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what
>they perceive is incorrect.

Thank you for taking the time to post this summary. It's very well-written
and I think it appropriately captures what most likely happened, given the
available evidence. As for action items, I see:

* evaluate whether the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws should be changed to
make it more difficult (or easier) to remove a Board of Trustees member;

* strongly urge the Board of Trustees to be more transparent and
communicative, embracing the values that keep our projects running; and

* evaluate the process for filling community-selected Board of Trustees
seats, perhaps changing the seats to be community-elected.

Obligatory reference: !

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Lilburne]

On 10/01/2016 04:04, Comet styles wrote:

Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but
the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass
codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he?

A board made up to govern a community driven project filled with
people no one voted in decides to give a community selected board
member the boot for reason which they supposedly 'cannot' reveal and
they wonder why the community is pissed off at them?



Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to James,
presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the 
appointment

of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changing the subject line

[Austin Hair]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:41 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> I'm amused that neither of you seemed to follow your own advice here,
> starting and continuing a tangential (meta-)discussion without changing
> the subject line to create a new thread. We'll all strive indeed. :-)

You've got me there. I'll try to do better next time. :)

Austin

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to 
James,

presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
appointment
of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.



Would you please remain civil. We do not have a Google appointed board 
member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a 
board member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google appointed, but 
community elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for 
him.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
> On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
>> Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to
>> James,
>> presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
>> appointment
>> of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
> Would you please remain civil. We do not have a Google appointed board
> member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a board
> member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google appointed, but community
> elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for him.

Literally speaking, Denny was appointed by Google to Google, so
"Google appointed board member" is not untrue, though "board member on
Google's payroll" would be less confusing.

As for a member of the "Googleplex" who is "a little tarnished", well
that's a mild way of putting the facts about illegal activities of
major public interest, very polite even.

To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find
out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful
way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex. Presumably current
and past employees would have taken their stock options. Is that
possible to discover from the public record in the USA?

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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What happened on the Board of Trustees?

[Austin Hair]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Comet styles  wrote:
> honestly, WMF
> has taken a  nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the
> hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her
> 'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC
> for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the
> same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..

This past week has obviously been intense, and I understand getting
riled up, but until now the discussion on this list has remained
remarkably civil in spite of it.

I don't consider Wil to be in any way relevant to the current
discussion, but more to the point, this is a plain slur which adds
nothing to the debate. I'll continue letting your posts through as
long as they're civil and productive, but you're on moderation for
now.

Austin

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[James Alexander]

Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]

I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for
question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of
thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what
seems to be a giant school of red herring
. We haven't quite yet gotten to
"Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in
it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only
concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the
"Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic (for
the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on
something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually
true at all at this point).

There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns (in
many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just no
good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought as
sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know it's
possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information our
imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that, but
it is rarely helpful.

James
User:Jamesofur
User:Jalexander-WMF

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
> > On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
> >> Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to
> >> James,
> >> presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
> >> appointment
> >> of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
> > Would you please remain civil. We do not have a Google appointed board
> > member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a
> board
> > member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google appointed, but community
> > elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for him.
>
> Literally speaking, Denny was appointed by Google to Google, so
> "Google appointed board member" is not untrue, though "board member on
> Google's payroll" would be less confusing.
>
> As for a member of the "Googleplex" who is "a little tarnished", well
> that's a mild way of putting the facts about illegal activities of
> major public interest, very polite even.
>
> To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find
> out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful
> way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex. Presumably current
> and past employees would have taken their stock options. Is that
> possible to discover from the public record in the USA?
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

Hi James Alexander,

Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended
Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?

I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.

Thanks,
Fae

On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander  wrote:
> Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
>
> I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
> concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for
> question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of
> thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what
> seems to be a giant school of red herring
> . We haven't quite yet gotten to
> "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in
> it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only
> concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the
> "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic (for
> the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on
> something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually
> true at all at this point).
>
> There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns (in
> many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just no
> good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought as
> sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know it's
> possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information our
> imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that, but
> it is rarely helpful.
>
> James
> User:Jamesofur
> User:Jalexander-WMF

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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[James Alexander]

I will admit that if I knew I would likely not be wiling to say without
talking to others first. However I will never lie and I can honestly say
that I do not.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Hi James Alexander,
>
> Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended
> Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?
>
> I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander  wrote:
> > Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
> >
> > I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
> > concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate
> for
> > question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of
> > thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what
> > seems to be a giant school of red herring
> > . We haven't quite yet
> gotten to
> > "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in
> > it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only
> > concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the
> > "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic
> (for
> > the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on
> > something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually
> > true at all at this point).
> >
> > There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns (in
> > many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just no
> > good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought as
> > sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know it's
> > possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information
> our
> > imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that,
> but
> > it is rarely helpful.
> >
> > James
> > User:Jamesofur
> > User:Jalexander-WMF
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Tobias]

On 01/10/2016 11:16 AM, James Alexander wrote:
> Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
> 
> I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
> concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for
> question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of
> thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what
> seems to be a giant school of red herring

I completely agree with you James. But, I do think that besides the
specific concerns over Arnnon, an overrepresentation of
Google-affiliated members in the board is a problem. Not because there
is a conspiracy, but because it is a lack of diversity.

In addition, it poses problems whenever the board has to decide anything
Google related. As a matter of principle, for any vote, board members
with a conflict of interest should abstain. If the majority of board
members have to abstain, this leaves the decision to a minority and thus
reduces its legitimacy.

Tobias



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Andrea Zanni]

I totally second James' invitation to avoid a certain tone, language and
conspiracy theories.
I will also add that the more those tone, language, and conspiracy theories
are used in these threads,
the *less* likely a good chunk of the community will participate in
conversation.

If we really want to be open and inclusive, please remain civil, polite and
constructive.
Wikimedia-l is not a felt as a "safe space" and this is a huge problem: at
least if we want meaningful, helpful, rich discussions.

This is not to say we do not have to clearly state what we think (and
feel): but please, let us avoid (metaphorical) pitchforks.

Thanks.

Aubrey

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 AM, James Alexander 
wrote:

> I will admit that if I knew I would likely not be wiling to say without
> talking to others first. However I will never lie and I can honestly say
> that I do not.
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Hi James Alexander,
> >
> > Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended
> > Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?
> >
> > I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> >
> > On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander 
> wrote:
> > > Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
> > >
> > > I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
> > > concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate
> > for
> > > question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line
> of
> > > thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what
> > > seems to be a giant school of red herring
> > > . We haven't quite yet
> > gotten to
> > > "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters
> in
> > > it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only
> > > concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the
> > > "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic
> > (for
> > > the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on
> > > something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't
> actually
> > > true at all at this point).
> > >
> > > There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns
> (in
> > > many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just
> no
> > > good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought
> as
> > > sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know
> it's
> > > possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information
> > our
> > > imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that,
> > but
> > > it is rarely helpful.
> > >
> > > James
> > > User:Jamesofur
> > > User:Jalexander-WMF
> >
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What happened on the Board of Trustees?

[Anthony Cole]

I hope this person is blocked from posting again here. Utterly
inappropriate.

On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Austin Hair  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Comet styles  > wrote:
> > honestly, WMF
> > has taken a  nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the
> > hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her
> > 'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC
> > for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the
> > same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..
>
> This past week has obviously been intense, and I understand getting
> riled up, but until now the discussion on this list has remained
> remarkably civil in spite of it.
>
> I don't consider Wil to be in any way relevant to the current
> discussion, but more to the point, this is a plain slur which adds
> nothing to the debate. I'll continue letting your posts through as
> long as they're civil and productive, but you're on moderation for
> now.
>
> Austin
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What happened on the Board of Trustees?

[Austin Hair]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> I hope this person is blocked from posting again here. Utterly
> inappropriate.

He's on moderation, which means each of his posts to the list will be
held and must be approved individually. As a rule, we don't like to
outright ban people, or use moderation punitively.

Austin

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[WereSpielChequers]

Recent threads query whether it is or should be a conflict of interest for
a board member to support the appointment of someone who used to work at
the same company, and whether multiple board members have shares or stock
options with a particular company. So I have read the Conflict of interest
policy ,
which from my lay person's reading does not appear to have been breached.

I have taken the opportunity to propose a couple of changes

to that policy. Note I have not first tried to find out how long it is
since a certain new trustee left the same company that an existing trustee
works for, nor  have I asked any board member how many Google shares that
they own. But I am making the assumption that no individual member of the
WMF board currently owns 10% or more of Google, so I would be very
surprised if any of them have managed to break the current conflict of
interest policy as I understand it.

To be clear I am not proposing any sort of retrospective change that would
mean a past decision was void because a trustee voted despite having an
interest according to these new rules. Any change to the rules could only
apply to decisions made after the rules were updated.

WereSpielChequers
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

I think Mr. Geshuri schould comment on the issue.


And
I don't know Mr. Geshuri, have never seen editing him.  So i can't trust him, 
especially after the google scandal.

> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:21:03 -0800
> From: petefors...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in 
> anticompetitive agreements in Google
> 
> Anders, thank you for your thoughtful message; I understand your position
> much better now, and see much to agree with:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anders Wennersten 
> wrote:
> 
> > I used the word Superprotect but could just as well said the disastrous
> > implementation of Visual Editor, which definitely  was not the doing of
> > Lila. And the very positive response to Community Wishlist i have read on
> > this list (and on the talkpages), I have not co,me across any real negative
> > feedback.across
> >
> 
> Yes, I agree -- the organization's software development processes are
> improved under Lila's leadership. Significant positive steps have been
> taken, no question -- and she certainly deserves some credit for that.
> 
> I am happy to read that there were several in the tech org who initiated
> > this, and that there is a positive feeling of it. I was 25 years ago for
> > seven years was a manager of a org developing sw tools for 3000 sw
> > developer (very similar the WMF setup)  and I went through the process of
> > going from inside-out.  And I learned that the setup of "wishlists" etc was
> > the easy part. I learned that when this was in place the internal org and
> > roles had to be redefined (it was not upwards you had to look what to
> > implement but to the community).
> 
> 
> I don't know for sure, but my impression is that in this case, much of this
> has been done simultaneously; internal structures have been changing
> alongside the processes for community engagement. I expect there is much
> credit for that to be shared among various parties, including Lila.
> 
> And there were a lot of squeaks before the org got sorted out, but then the
> > people got very stimulated working in a outside-in organisation.
> >
> 
> Glad to hear of this experience.
> 
> 
> > And from this perspective I actually think the Board made a very good work
> > identifying the competence Geshuri has which I believe is just what the
> > Board and WMF needs just now.
> 
> 
> That very well may be the case. I do not have a strong opinion on Mr.
> Geshuri's competencies, and am happy to defer to your more-informed
> perspective. I am heartened to hear that the Board may have done good work
> in identifying and addressing certain missing competencies (even if there
> may be separate issues with the specific choice).
> 
> I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
> though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
> (1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
> background
> (2) Mr. Geshuri himself did not highlight the Google firing issue to the
> board prior to his appointment, which makes me wonder about his judgment.
> 
> The problems associated with him is already identified and I am not denying
> > these, but please give the Board also credit for their good work, not just
> > blaming when (and if) they make mistakes
> 
> 
> I am happy to do so, but I must say -- so much of the board's work is
> invisible to me, that I rarely have enough information to do so.
> 
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Fæ]

Thanks WereSpeilChequers, I especially approve of "You could define a
de minimis threshold, perhaps a shareholding that pays you dividends
worth no more than a cup of coffee a month is not worth declaring. But
for simplicity and transparency it might be easier to recuse from any
decision where you are a shareholder."[1]

This cost-free and minor improvement to WMF governance would help a
lot towards community confidence in the WMF board, particularly if the
WMF adopted the transparency practices for (pre-emptive) public
trustee declarations of interest we implemented for Wikimedia UK as
part of necessary governance improvements.[2]

Links
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Conflicts_of_interest_-_investments
2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest

Fae

On 10 January 2016 at 12:11, WereSpielChequers
 wrote:
> Recent threads query whether it is or should be a conflict of interest for
> a board member to support the appointment of someone who used to work at
> the same company, and whether multiple board members have shares or stock
> options with a particular company. So I have read the Conflict of interest
> policy ,
> which from my lay person's reading does not appear to have been breached.
>
> I have taken the opportunity to propose a couple of changes
> 
> to that policy. Note I have not first tried to find out how long it is
> since a certain new trustee left the same company that an existing trustee
> works for, nor  have I asked any board member how many Google shares that
> they own. But I am making the assumption that no individual member of the
> WMF board currently owns 10% or more of Google, so I would be very
> surprised if any of them have managed to break the current conflict of
> interest policy as I understand it.
>
> To be clear I am not proposing any sort of retrospective change that would
> mean a past decision was void because a trustee voted despite having an
> interest according to these new rules. Any change to the rules could only
> apply to decisions made after the rules were updated.
>
> WereSpielChequers
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] The errors in our way

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In the last months too much has been said about quality and what others
have to do. This thread is about quality and its aim is not for Wikipedia
to change its way, it will not. It is to discuss lack of quality in
Wikipedia, a proposal that will improve quality but that will not be
accepted by "the community" because it is set in its ways.

In one blogpost [1] I discuss how redlinks can be improved using the
existing data of Wikidata as a start. In my latest blogpost [2] I discuss
Wiki links and how they can be improved by using Wikidata as a base. In the
item of the Spearman Medal, I have improved Wikipedia by 20% by fixing wiki
links, I have added 20% data by adding a few recent winners of the award.

When Wiki links are created, it is expected that they will "just" work. A
link is created, it is blue FINE :). However disambiguation often does not
happen and for whatever reason disambiguation pages do not exist.

Most of the functionality to replace wikilinks with Wikidata based
functionality already exist for a long time. People like Magnus build and
blogged about and I blogged about it.

What does it take for Wikipedians to consider their own issues in stead of
finding fault elsewhere ?
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
[2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Tobias]

Apologies for a slightly off-topic reply, but:

On 01/10/2016 01:21 PM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> I don't know Mr. Geshuri, have never seen editing him.  So i can't
> trust him, especially after the google scandal.

I don't think board members need to be active editors.

The board is supposed to have expert knowledge. And expertise is not
just editing Wikipedia, but also overseeing a large organization such as
WMF. It's good to have both board members who are expert on wikis, and
to have experts on financial management and administration.

(The Google scandal is an entirely different thing of course, and a much
better reason to question the decision to make Arnnon a board member)

Tobias

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Well spotted. Expressing the amount of ownership that rises to a conflict
of interest in terms of a percentage of all shares in the company strikes
me as startlingly inappropriate.

Owning 1% of a company worth $400 billion would be a very, very significant
conflict of interest for a board member. Owning 11% of a tiny company worth
$5,000, not so much. Surely, what matters is not the percentage of
ownership, but its monetary value.

As you say, for simplicity and transparency it is clearly best if board
members recuse from any decisions involving a company they hold shares in.

That change to the Conflict of Interest policy should be made as soon as
possible.

Andreas

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:11 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Recent threads query whether it is or should be a conflict of interest for
> a board member to support the appointment of someone who used to work at
> the same company, and whether multiple board members have shares or stock
> options with a particular company. So I have read the Conflict of interest
> policy ,
> which from my lay person's reading does not appear to have been breached.
>
> I have taken the opportunity to propose a couple of changes
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Conflicts_of_interest_-_investments
> >
> to that policy. Note I have not first tried to find out how long it is
> since a certain new trustee left the same company that an existing trustee
> works for, nor  have I asked any board member how many Google shares that
> they own. But I am making the assumption that no individual member of the
> WMF board currently owns 10% or more of Google, so I would be very
> surprised if any of them have managed to break the current conflict of
> interest policy as I understand it.
>
> To be clear I am not proposing any sort of retrospective change that would
> mean a past decision was void because a trustee voted despite having an
> interest according to these new rules. Any change to the rules could only
> apply to decisions made after the rules were updated.
>
> WereSpielChequers
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

10.01.2016 05:04 "Fæ"  napisał(a):
>
> To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find
> out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful
> way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex.

While I don't have, and never had (nor expect to have in the future) any
shares in Google, I have to make a full disclosure that I do use Google for
my internet searches (Google.pl, to be exact, which may also be
occasionally relevant).

Dariusz
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.

Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank
declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]

Link
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Conflicts_of_interest_-_investments
2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest

Thanks,
Fae

On 10 January 2016 at 14:14, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> 10.01.2016 05:04 "Fæ"  napisał(a):
>>
>> To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find
>> out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful
>> way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex.
>
> While I don't have, and never had (nor expect to have in the future) any
> shares in Google, I have to make a full disclosure that I do use Google for
> my internet searches (Google.pl, to be exact, which may also be
> occasionally relevant).
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
>
> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
> you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank
> declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
>

I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until
there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board
members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice
to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know
of one yet; I will ask).

I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o.
(Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online
dictionary in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or
other dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata)  and the dictionary is
still published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a
significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup
oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about
50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language
acquisition project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse
myself.

I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be
considered a potential COI, I think.

I'm glad the conversation is back to more civilized - I have to admit that
I don't quite enjoy being called a clown (while I have a healthy respect
and awe for clowns, and I don't consider myself to be suffering from
coulrophobia).

cheers,

dj


>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

Thanks Dariusz, nice example declaration for the rest of the board to
think about.

I look forward to reading about the WMF board follow-up, as this is an
easy win to demonstrate improved governance, at a time when we need to
count a few quick wins in the good-will bank.

Fae

On 10 January 2016 at 15:40, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
>>
>> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
>> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
>> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
>> you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank
>> declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
>
>
> I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until there
> is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board members
> to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice to
> develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know of
> one yet; I will ask).
>
> I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o.
> (Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online dictionary
> in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or other
> dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata)  and the dictionary is still
> published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a
> significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup
> oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about
> 50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language acquisition
> project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse myself.
>
> I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be
> considered a potential COI, I think.
>
> I'm glad the conversation is back to more civilized - I have to admit that I
> don't quite enjoy being called a clown (while I have a healthy respect and
> awe for clowns, and I don't consider myself to be suffering from
> coulrophobia).
>
> cheers,
>
> dj
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Tim Landscheidt]

Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

>> Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.

>> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
>> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
>> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
>> you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank
>> declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]

> I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until
> there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board
> members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice
> to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know
> of one yet; I will ask).

> I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o.
> (Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online
> dictionary in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or
> other dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata)  and the dictionary is
> still published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a
> significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup
> oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about
> 50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language
> acquisition project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse
> myself.

> I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be
> considered a potential COI, I think.

> […]

This illustrates the common (mis-)interpretation of con-
flicts of interests quite nicely: When it concerns Wikime-
dia, "interest" is something non-material, "duty"/"honour"/
etc., the conflicting interests however can always be mea-
sured in dollars.

WMUK's practice recognizes to a degree that there are non-
financial interests; that they have found nine people who
can name their interests for the most part in one paragraph
and none has friends or family shows the limits of such a
system.

To me this insistence on declaring (blatant) conflicts of
interests or labelling them with price tags is a red her-
ring.  The "quality" of a trustee or staffer should be mea-
sured only by how far they advanced the organization.  Noone
should be able to excuse damaging it with the argument that
they did not profit from the downfall.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Anthony Cole]

Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent review
into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF commissioned
into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to
embrace.

On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Well spotted. Expressing the amount of ownership that rises to a conflict
> of interest in terms of a percentage of all shares in the company strikes
> me as startlingly inappropriate.
>
> Owning 1% of a company worth $400 billion would be a very, very significant
> conflict of interest for a board member. Owning 11% of a tiny company worth
> $5,000, not so much. Surely, what matters is not the percentage of
> ownership, but its monetary value.
>
> As you say, for simplicity and transparency it is clearly best if board
> members recuse from any decisions involving a company they hold shares in.
>
> That change to the Conflict of Interest policy should be made as soon as
> possible.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:11 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > Recent threads query whether it is or should be a conflict of interest
> for
> > a board member to support the appointment of someone who used to work at
> > the same company, and whether multiple board members have shares or stock
> > options with a particular company. So I have read the Conflict of
> interest
> > policy  >,
> > which from my lay person's reading does not appear to have been breached.
> >
> > I have taken the opportunity to propose a couple of changes
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Conflicts_of_interest_-_investments
> > >
> > to that policy. Note I have not first tried to find out how long it is
> > since a certain new trustee left the same company that an existing
> trustee
> > works for, nor  have I asked any board member how many Google shares that
> > they own. But I am making the assumption that no individual member of the
> > WMF board currently owns 10% or more of Google, so I would be very
> > surprised if any of them have managed to break the current conflict of
> > interest policy as I understand it.
> >
> > To be clear I am not proposing any sort of retrospective change that
> would
> > mean a past decision was void because a trustee voted despite having an
> > interest according to these new rules. Any change to the rules could only
> > apply to decisions made after the rules were updated.
> >
> > WereSpielChequers
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent review
> into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF commissioned
> into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to
> embrace.


I'm not aware of a permanent decision ruling out such a review in the
future as a part of good practice/continuous improvement. My understanding
is that the WMUK circumstances were quite extraordinary and definitely our
of process at the time.

cheers,

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Florence Devouard]

Le 10/01/16 16:40, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ  wrote:


Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.

Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank
declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]



I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until
there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board
members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice
to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know
of one yet; I will ask).


Oh...

Right...

Please check
* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies
This is the list of policies you are bound to.

And amongst those, I would like to point out to:
* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy
* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment

I am saddened to discover that pretty obviously... the board is no more 
following a policy it approved many years ago.


And also saddened to discover that new board members are not oriented 
about their obligations. Nor do new board members actually look at WMF 
site (if only to point out to approved policies obviously disregarded).



Florence



I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o.
(Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online
dictionary in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or
other dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata)  and the dictionary is
still published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a
significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup
oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about
50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language
acquisition project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse
myself.

I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be
considered a potential COI, I think.

I'm glad the conversation is back to more civilized - I have to admit that
I don't quite enjoy being called a clown (while I have a healthy respect
and awe for clowns, and I don't consider myself to be suffering from
coulrophobia).

cheers,

dj





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 






___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Chris Keating]

I was chair of Wikimedia UK at the time of our governance review, and yes,
the circumstances were quite different.

I also think based on that experience review of WMF governance wouldn't
give the answers I think some people want to hear. In particular no
governance expert is going to do any of;
- criticise a board for having  (and using ) the power to remove a trustee
whose presence makes it impossible for the board to do a good job
- suggest broadcasting board meetings live on the Internet
- jump down the Google rabbit hole that half of the posts on this list seem
to inhabit at the minute

Generally governance reviews are quite healthy things and WMF should
consider having one at some point. Equally the recommendations and
methodology used for Wikimedia UK are well worth reading for all movement
organisations as much of it is general. Am on my tablet at present so can't
post a link but you can Google it (so long as you declare the fact)

Regards,

Chris Keating
On 10 Jan 2016 20:17, "Dariusz Jemielniak"  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent
> review
> > into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF
> commissioned
> > into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to
> > embrace.
>
>
> I'm not aware of a permanent decision ruling out such a review in the
> future as a part of good practice/continuous improvement. My understanding
> is that the WMUK circumstances were quite extraordinary and definitely our
> of process at the time.
>
> cheers,
>
> dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Anthony Cole]

Chris, I agree the points you raise wouldn't matter to a governance review.
The board's handling of James's removal and their attitude toward
transparency (and the preponderance of Silicon Valley people) are matters
fou us to judge. I'd like an expert to look over the board's understanding
of and practice around financial conflict of interest, and make
recommendations if those don't presently match best practice.

I am concerned that Denny may not have been recusing from discussions and
decisions affecting Google. This strikes me as exceptional, and that the
board doesn't find it so troubles me, and hints that you may all have
something to gain from independent advice.
On 11 Jan 2016 4:49 am, "Chris Keating"  wrote:

> I was chair of Wikimedia UK at the time of our governance review, and yes,
> the circumstances were quite different.
>
> I also think based on that experience review of WMF governance wouldn't
> give the answers I think some people want to hear. In particular no
> governance expert is going to do any of;
> - criticise a board for having  (and using ) the power to remove a trustee
> whose presence makes it impossible for the board to do a good job
> - suggest broadcasting board meetings live on the Internet
> - jump down the Google rabbit hole that half of the posts on this list seem
> to inhabit at the minute
>
> Generally governance reviews are quite healthy things and WMF should
> consider having one at some point. Equally the recommendations and
> methodology used for Wikimedia UK are well worth reading for all movement
> organisations as much of it is general. Am on my tablet at present so can't
> post a link but you can Google it (so long as you declare the fact)
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Keating
> On 10 Jan 2016 20:17, "Dariusz Jemielniak"  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent
> > review
> > > into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF
> > commissioned
> > > into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to
> > > embrace.
> >
> >
> > I'm not aware of a permanent decision ruling out such a review in the
> > future as a part of good practice/continuous improvement. My
> understanding
> > is that the WMUK circumstances were quite extraordinary and definitely
> our
> > of process at the time.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > dj
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Chris Keating]

> I am concerned that Denny may not have been recusing from discussions and
> decisions affecting Google. This strikes me as exceptional, and that the
> board doesn't find it so troubles me, and hints that you may all have
> something to gain from independent advice.


Out of interest, do you know of a single decision made by the WMF board
regarding Google while Denny has been on the Board?

All their resolutions are public, and the members voting in favour and
against and absent or recused from each decision are listed. So if the WMF
has been discussing WMF's relationship with Google and Denny hasn't recused
himself this should be apparent.

I have not checked the list of resolutions myself but I suspect that the
WMF board rarely, if ever, considers anything to do with any major tech
companies.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.


​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​
 Arnnon Geshuri
​ for a seat on the Board?

Sarah​
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

>
>
> ​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​
>  Arnnon Geshuri
> ​ for a seat on the Board?
>
>
AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know,
and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why
it would matter - people should stand or fail on their own.

I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
from our donors, if this helps.


dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Samuel Klein]

On Jan 10, 2016 12:33, "Florence Devouard"  wrote:

>>> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
>>> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
>>> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
>>> you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank
>>> declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
>>
>> I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until
>> there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board
>> members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good
practice
>> to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't
know
>> of one yet; I will ask).
>
> I would like to point out to:
> * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy
> * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment
>
> I am saddened to discover that pretty obviously... the board is no more
following a policy it approved many years ago.

At least as of last summer, board members all follow those policies:
Taking a pledge of personal commitment on joining, and making a COI
declaration each year.

These are not currently public; that is a difference from WMUK practice.

WMF board members in my experience do recuse themselves from any decision
where they may be conflicted - more strictly than in other organizations I
know.

> And also saddened to discover that
> new board members are not oriented about their obligations.

There is an orientation session in person each year, as well as online.
There is surely room for improvement, but it is part of the annual agenda.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
...
> AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
> think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know,
> and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why
> it would matter - people should stand or fail on their own.

This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely*
responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a
transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.

As an unlikely example, if the only nominations that get through to
the board were nominated and on the personal network of one current
trustee, then yes, the rest of the board of trustees must know that a
conflict of interest was at play, rather than presuming that an
unbiased process happened without you understanding it or caring about
it.

It's been said before, there is no possible reason for this
information to be secret. Please publish it or give a real explanation
of why it must be kept a secret rather than "because we want to" or
"because it was always kept a secret".

Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>> ​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​
>>  Arnnon Geshuri
>> ​ for a seat on the Board?
>>
>>
> AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
> think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know,
> and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why
> it would matter - people should stand or fail on their own.
>
> I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
> from our donors, if this helps.
>
>
>
Dariusz, my request is that you make it public on this occasion. Given the
new trustee's involvement in this
,
the nomination is surprising. I'm also concerned that you seemed not to be
aware of the background, but you supported the appointment, so it raises a
general question about how these decisions are made.​

Trust in the Board is low at the moment. Transparency will go a long way to
restoring it.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> ..
> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely*
> responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a
> transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.


for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members
themselves do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the
confusion.

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

Sorry, this continues to dig a bizarre hole. It would be rude or even
unethical to nominate someone for a demanding trustee position in a
NFP or charity without first personally approaching them in a friendly
way and asking them if they might be interested and would like to be
nominated. I do not know of any charity where prospective trustees
routinely get nominated in secret without the candidate knowing who
put their name forward, though some people respond to public
recruiting adverts for trustee seats. The WMF is not supposed to be
run as if it were a secretive members only club for plutocrats.

There has been no reason given here so far that can explain this
default arbitrary secrecy. It seems very hard not to consider the
possibility that Arnnon's nomination was done in a way that the
community would find unpalatable and would reflect badly on those
involved.

Just make the facts of Arnnon's appointment to the board a matter of
public record, rather than dancing around it.

Fae

On 11 January 2016 at 01:44, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>>
>> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>> ..
>> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely*
>> responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a
>> transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.
>
>
> for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members themselves
> do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the confusion.
>
> dj

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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>> ..
>> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely*
>> responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a
>> transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.
>
>
> for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members
> themselves do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the
> confusion.

Hi Dariusz,

Do you mean you have no knowledge of who nominated the candidates?
Im also having difficulty understanding how you could vote without
being aware of who nominated the candidates.
But there are some ways that could be OK, if not ideal.

Was the filtering process concluded before you were appointed to the board?
Or was the filtering process done by a subcommittee?
Or was nomination data not provided as part of the info pack about
each candidate?
Or something else...?

How many candidates for these two seats did you (personally) evaluate
before voting to appoint these two?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
> from our donors, if this helps.

I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom
existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the
new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial
(optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the
process starts).

NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use
HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha.
(Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you;
they are professionals.)

Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the
list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad
per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while
some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of
the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list.
However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not
dilettantes.

There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and
structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping
the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and
orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now
and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how
vocal he is here or anywhere else.

I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times.
Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by,
but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not
corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the
best possible options for your organization if you are able to do
that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if
there is no that serious investigation against him.

Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how
serious mistakes could pass because of that.

That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every
particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional
memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a
year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know
Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable
to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also,
Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything
against candidates of Google background). This situation could have
been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the
Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.

I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:

Committee:
- Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
- Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
- OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
developing country.
- We have a woman!
- From developing country?
- No.
- OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
- True. We don't have time anymore. Done.

Board:
- Dariusz: We have two candidates!
- Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too
drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the
end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
- Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
- Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about
wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him...
Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's
yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing
serious, I am sure."
- Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect.
- Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!

I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's
clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us.
However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and
small number of persons in the Board tend to create an open field for
dilettantism.

On the other hand, I am sure that we could find relevant place for
every non-controversial Jimmy's friend willing to contribute to our
movement. I would like to see, for example, Richard Branson inside of
Wikimedia movement, helping us to create Enterprise. And I am serious.
We have to be bold and we have to be friends with other bold people.
OK, maybe not Enterprise, but Stanford Torus inside of the Earth's
orbit would do the job, as well :)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

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

[Fæ]

Milos, is your email a wind-up?

I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let
Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that
should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.

If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF really,
*really*, needs a governance review and changes to ensure trustees are
appointed who do not have a history of being found in court to be
acting illegally and get in just because they are exceedingly wealthy,
a good chap according Jimmy, or have just been hanging out at the
right parties for rich Californians.

Imagine a world where the sum of human knowledge was governed by an
open and transparent trusted meritocracy. Wouldn't that be super?

Fae

On 11 January 2016 at 02:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>> I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
>> from our donors, if this helps.
>
> I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom
> existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the
> new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial
> (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the
> process starts).
>
> NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use
> HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha.
> (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you;
> they are professionals.)
>
> Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the
> list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad
> per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while
> some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of
> the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list.
> However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not
> dilettantes.
>
> There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and
> structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping
> the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and
> orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now
> and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how
> vocal he is here or anywhere else.
>
> I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times.
> Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by,
> but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not
> corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the
> best possible options for your organization if you are able to do
> that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if
> there is no that serious investigation against him.
>
> Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how
> serious mistakes could pass because of that.
>
> That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every
> particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional
> memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a
> year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know
> Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable
> to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also,
> Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything
> against candidates of Google background). This situation could have
> been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the
> Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
>
> I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
>
> Committee:
> - Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
> - Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
> Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
> - OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
> developing country.
> - We have a woman!
> - From developing country?
> - No.
> - OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
> angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
> - True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
>
> Board:
> - Dariusz: We have two candidates!
> - Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
> approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too
> drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the
> end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
> - Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
> me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
> - Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
> guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about
> wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him...
> Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's
> yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about

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

[Risker]

Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination
process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other former
process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from
late September or early October when candidates and nominations were
solicited, and further follow-up emails about this time's process.

Risker

On 10 January 2016 at 21:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
> > I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
> > from our donors, if this helps.
>
> I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom
> existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the
> new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial
> (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the
> process starts).
>
> NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use
> HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha.
> (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you;
> they are professionals.)
>
> Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the
> list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad
> per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while
> some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of
> the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list.
> However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not
> dilettantes.
>
> There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and
> structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping
> the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and
> orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now
> and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how
> vocal he is here or anywhere else.
>
> I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times.
> Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by,
> but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not
> corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the
> best possible options for your organization if you are able to do
> that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if
> there is no that serious investigation against him.
>
> Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how
> serious mistakes could pass because of that.
>
> That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every
> particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional
> memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a
> year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know
> Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable
> to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also,
> Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything
> against candidates of Google background). This situation could have
> been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the
> Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
>
> I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
>
> Committee:
> - Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
> - Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
> Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
> - OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
> developing country.
> - We have a woman!
> - From developing country?
> - No.
> - OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
> angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
> - True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
>
> Board:
> - Dariusz: We have two candidates!
> - Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
> approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too
> drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the
> end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
> - Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
> me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
> - Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
> guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about
> wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him...
> Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's
> yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing
> serious, I am sure."
> - Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect.
> - Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!
>
> I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's
> clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us.
> However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and
> small number of persons in the Board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Craig Franklin]

I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but
also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing
trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to
allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense.  I'll be
reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines
to provide one).

Cheers,
Craig

On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard  wrote:

> ... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...
>
> This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume
> good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
> circumstances and evidence here.
>
>
> - d.
>
> On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > Thanks for saying that.  I'd also add that while the situation with
> Arrnon
> > looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people
> are
> > breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has
> a
> > chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the
> > others can properly look into the matter.  I also think that some of the
> > more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is
> > more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we
> > want.  Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all lose
> > our heads.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into
> >> the
> >> > matter, and prepare an answer
> >>
> >> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
> >>
> >> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
> >> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now.
> It is
> >> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key
> parts
> >> of the solution have to happen in private.
> >>
> >> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy
> in
> >> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an
> organisation
> >> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
> >> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
> >> breath and  think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board
> members
> >> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
> >> coordinate between three different continents.
> >>
> >> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone
> speculates
> >> and demands answers to their particular questions  (and some people
> >> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who
> spends
> >> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all
> the
> >> emails
> >>
> >> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,
> which
> >> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet
> more
> >> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Chris Keating
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

[Anthony Cole]

Chris, there have been no resolutions since Denny assumed his seat that
impact Denny's employer, as best as I can tell, unless there is an existing
direct relationship between Google and one or both of the new trustees, and
no one's provided evidence of that. I hope Denny will recuse from any
decision-making that might impact his employer, not just those decisions
that directly address his employer.

I would be concerned if he were involved in *discussions* on topics that
impact Google, not just topics where Google is named. By this I mean, but
not only, anything touching on the Knowledge Engine and WikiData, and I'm
not just referring to discussions related to a resolution. The executive
session of each board meeting is secret.

On Monday, January 11, 2016, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> > I am concerned that Denny may not have been recusing from discussions and
> > decisions affecting Google. This strikes me as exceptional, and that the
> > board doesn't find it so troubles me, and hints that you may all have
> > something to gain from independent advice.
>
>
> Out of interest, do you know of a single decision made by the WMF board
> regarding Google while Denny has been on the Board?
>
> All their resolutions are public, and the members voting in favour and
> against and absent or recused from each decision are listed. So if the WMF
> has been discussing WMF's relationship with Google and Denny hasn't recused
> himself this should be apparent.
>
> I have not checked the list of resolutions myself but I suspect that the
> WMF board rarely, if ever, considers anything to do with any major tech
> companies.
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> Milos, is your email a wind-up?
>
> I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let
> Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that
> should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.

You know I didn't say that. However, this process has never changed
and Jimmy's network *is* realistically the best method for reaching
strong candidates inside of the current state of the movement.

There are two better methods for that:

1) Wider community participation in making a wishlist. That has to be
followed by WMF's ability to reach those people from the wishlist. I
am not sure if WMF has that capacity.

2) Good HR agency. Sue found that one and they did good job by finding Bishakha.

> If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF really,
> *really*, needs a governance review and changes to ensure trustees are
> appointed who do not have a history of being found in court to be
> acting illegally and get in just because they are exceedingly wealthy,
> a good chap according Jimmy, or have just been hanging out at the
> right parties for rich Californians.

Not checking Arnnon's background is serious flaw by all Board members
at the time of his selection. Otherwise, as I said, he'd be a strong
reinforcement to the Board, on the lines I said above.

Hm. I think we already scared the Board enough. Please, don't mention
governance review, as some of them are close to their 50s and it could
negatively influence their health.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Risker  wrote:
> Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination
> process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other former
> process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from
> late September or early October when candidates and nominations were
> solicited, and further follow-up emails about this time's process.

If you are referring to Boryana Dineva's email, that's nothing new.
The "Jimmy's list" wasn't the only list seven years ago. We called for
nominations, if I remember well. I spent the most of my time in
talking with people about their ideas. In relation to the nominations,
the biggest issue was that almost nobody cared about them. I am almost
sure this was the case this time, as well.

However, that list was filled with the best and realistic names --
meaning that anyone from the list could have been reached. Meaning
that from one side some of us wanted high profile names, but they
weren't reachable by the means of Wikimedia Foundation; while from the
other one you can't compete with Jimmy's network if you are not Bono.

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Gnangarra]

its not difficult to dress mutton up as lamb

consider if you will
This person has considerable experience in HR and collaborative efforts
with most of the largest multinational technology companies. Was
instrumental in the development of a cross industry HR process that ensured
employees looking to change between companies werent pressured into
revealing projects and propriety developments as part of the recruitment
process.

it like having a COI policy based on how much one owns of a company rather
how dependent one is on a company for their income, one person owning 10%
of x may have less than 1% of their overall investments in X, where as
someone with less than 1% may have 75% investments in X so therefore X is
more critical. Another person may have no investment in X but be employed a
supplier to X and derive their whole income from that  which person is more
likely to act with a COI.

It's a rhetorical question because each can choose not to, the only measure
that should consider is whether  the people will act in the best interest
of WMF/community within the standards we expect from trustees of the
community... most of us can identify a number of trusted(highly trusted)
contributors that divided the community over whats acceptable standards and
expectations and the resulting conflicts that occurred

Regardless of the selection process whether through a professional HR
company or a community consultation it is concerning that someone named as
defendant in a substantive court matter would be recommended for a position
of trust with a charity before the matter was resolved especially
considering that an associated court action found that wrong doing had
taken place.

What ever process was used its definitely broken,

Cheers
Gnangarra


On 11 January 2016 at 11:32, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> > Milos, is your email a wind-up?
> >
> > I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let
> > Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that
> > should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.
>
> You know I didn't say that. However, this process has never changed
> and Jimmy's network *is* realistically the best method for reaching
> strong candidates inside of the current state of the movement.
>
> There are two better methods for that:
>
> 1) Wider community participation in making a wishlist. That has to be
> followed by WMF's ability to reach those people from the wishlist. I
> am not sure if WMF has that capacity.
>
> 2) Good HR agency. Sue found that one and they did good job by finding
> Bishakha.
>
> > If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF really,
> > *really*, needs a governance review and changes to ensure trustees are
> > appointed who do not have a history of being found in court to be
> > acting illegally and get in just because they are exceedingly wealthy,
> > a good chap according Jimmy, or have just been hanging out at the
> > right parties for rich Californians.
>
> Not checking Arnnon's background is serious flaw by all Board members
> at the time of his selection. Otherwise, as I said, he'd be a strong
> reinforcement to the Board, on the lines I said above.
>
> Hm. I think we already scared the Board enough. Please, don't mention
> governance review, as some of them are close to their 50s and it could
> negatively influence their health.
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination
> > process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other
> former
> > process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from
> > late September or early October when candidates and nominations were
> > solicited, and further follow-up emails about this time's process.
>
> If you are referring to Boryana Dineva's email, that's nothing new.
> The "Jimmy's list" wasn't the only list seven years ago. We called for
> nominations, if I remember well. I spent the most of my time in
> talking with people about their ideas. In relation to the nominations,
> the biggest issue was that almost nobody cared about them. I am almost
> sure this was the case this time, as well.
>
> However, that list was filled with the best and realistic names --
> meaning that anyone from the list could have been reached. Meaning
> that from one side some of us wanted high profile names, but they
> weren't reachable by the means of Wikimedia Foundation; while from the
> other one you can't compete with Jimmy's network if you are not Bono.
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___

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

[Lodewijk]

ok, if it hadn't already, this thread has now officially spun out of
control and can be marked as 'ridiculous'. Thank you for taking an
important issueand driving it so far off that I'll stop reading.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
> > I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
> > from our donors, if this helps.
>
> I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom
> existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the
> new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial
> (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the
> process starts).
>
> NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use
> HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha.
> (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you;
> they are professionals.)
>
> Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the
> list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad
> per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while
> some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of
> the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list.
> However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not
> dilettantes.
>
> There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and
> structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping
> the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and
> orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now
> and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how
> vocal he is here or anywhere else.
>
> I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times.
> Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by,
> but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not
> corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the
> best possible options for your organization if you are able to do
> that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if
> there is no that serious investigation against him.
>
> Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how
> serious mistakes could pass because of that.
>
> That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every
> particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional
> memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a
> year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know
> Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable
> to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also,
> Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything
> against candidates of Google background). This situation could have
> been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the
> Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
>
> I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
>
> Committee:
> - Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
> - Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
> Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
> - OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
> developing country.
> - We have a woman!
> - From developing country?
> - No.
> - OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
> angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
> - True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
>
> Board:
> - Dariusz: We have two candidates!
> - Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
> approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too
> drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the
> end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
> - Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
> me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
> - Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
> guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about
> wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him...
> Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's
> yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing
> serious, I am sure."
> - Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect.
> - Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!
>
> I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's
> clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us.
> However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and
> small number of persons in the Board tend to create an open field for
> dilettantism.
>
> On the other hand, I am sure that we could find relevant place for
> every non-controversial Jimm