Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward.
>

​Erik, what do you see as the alternative?

There is a pattern here. For example, when James was removed in December,
Jimmy said he was not releasing information about it out of concern for
James.​

He wrote: "a man's reputation is at stake here." [1] "Our choice might have
been to post something blunt and damaging to him ... Remember, a man's
public reputation is at risk here." [2] And "Because a man's reputation is
at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about
James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience." [3]

Those posts were troubling – on a par with someone on the Board making
James feel that he ought to propose accepting the Knight grant, when in
fact he was the one who objected to it. That James proposed it was then
held up as evidence that he wasn't telling the truth about other issues. [4]

Is this the kind of Board we want? How are we to move forward if we're not
allowed to talk about it?

Sarah


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697333942
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407110
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407275
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704228495
​
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:55 AM, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>
> > But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after
> each
> > other.
> >
> > ​Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours
> radical transparency regarding James's removal and surrounding issues. But
> it's now March, and nothing has been released except under pressure or
> thanks to others. The result
> ​has been a huge loss of trust. Trying to stifle discussion will only make
> things worse.
>

​He can favor radical transparency all he wants, that doesn't mean in the
real world role that he currently occupies as a WMF Board of Trustee member
that *he can actually do that*. Airing his private emails as a pressure
tactic to get people to break what is probably legal advice is just absurd
and below board.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
He is (as far as I know) flying coach. It was his own project with his own
money. So what is the point?
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 10 March 2016 at 07:19, Ruslan Takayev  wrote:

> Gerard, et al
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
> > Google is bonkers.
>
>
> I agree totally, but didn't Jimmy once have plans for a Google-killing
> machine with a view to buying himself a new jet?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Ruslan Takayev
> ___
> 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] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each
> other.
>
> ​Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours
radical transparency regarding James's removal and surrounding issues. But
it's now March, and nothing has been released except under pressure or
thanks to others. The result
​has been a huge loss of trust. Trying to stifle discussion will only make
things worse.

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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Ruslan Takayev]

Gerard, et al

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
> Google is bonkers.


I agree totally, but didn't Jimmy once have plans for a Google-killing
machine with a view to buying himself a new jet?

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth :

> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)

Pete, regardless of Jimmy's words in this email, like others, I fail
to see how it's okay to share a private email to this list. I can
think of a few instances where this might be ethically defensible --
like actual fraud being committed -- but this is not one of them. It's
totally fair for people to ask Jimmy to clear the air on stuff
himself, but this crosses the line, at least from my point of view.

This comes down to giving a person you're corresponding with an
honest, open channel by which they can apologize, clarify, and make
things right. By violating that private channel you're making it
implicitly impossible to have that kind of conversation.

Meatball Wiki, as you know, has some wise words on this kind of stuff.
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForgiveAndForget is a good page to
remember.

And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
But this isn't how we should move forward. Criticizing people's
actions is fair game, even calling for resignation or other types of
structural and organizational change. This kind of picking out of
lines from private emails ought _not_ to be, in my view.

Erik

___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with
Google is bonkers. The mudslinging and power grabbing tone of many of these
messages seriously turn me off. The only thing they accomplish is that
people like myself are moving in their emotions from depressed to furious.

I do not care for all this bullshit. I sat in on a board meeting in
Rotterdam. It was with Jimmy, Angela and Anthere. It is unlikely to be in
any minutes and I only give it as an indication that I have been on the
inside of what is the Wikimedia Foundation for a longer time.  I do not
think that either Jimmy or James is crazy but I do know that when people
get into situation that are crazy that they will become erratic.

At a time I asked Pete pointblanc for his opinion on something that had to
do with the quality of Wikipedia. I provided him with all the arguments how
and why it would benefit Wikipedia and its quality. I asked him for his
opinion. I asked him what could be done about it. The only result I got was
suspicion. What was it that I wanted from him, why was it that I asked him
all this. I did not get an response that indicated to me that Pete was
interested at all in Wikipedia.

Pete may share the emails. My memory is known to be erratic but not in this.

Ask yourself. What is it that we want to achieve. How can we achieve it.
What does it take and who is on board.

The WMF is not a democracy. Intentionally so. There is a structure with a
balance of power for stakeholders. The only stakeholder lacking is
personnel. In an optimal world it is the ED that speaks for them. Clearly
this did not happen recently and, sadly so.

The disgust that I feel for what is happening is resulting in many negative
effects complementary to what has been widely mentioned. I will describe
how it affects me. I feel more and more disconnected from the Wikimedia
crowd. It is involved in things that are interesting from a sociological
point of view but it increasingly detracts from what the real issues should
be. This mailing list is more than enough, I can not stomach more and
consequently I do not frequent Meta anymore. This sadly means that all the
legitimate reasons for frequenting Meta are lost for me as well. Given that
I associate many of the "pundits" with Wikipedia, I increasingly grow
antagonistic towards Wikipedia. This is spite of my wish for Wikipedia to
do better than that it does. In spite of my preparations for a project that
I am pushing. A project where I hope to engage James in a positive and
meaningful way (and yes we have had initial communications).

Ask yourself what do all these "analysis" bring us but distrust? When the
board comes with a way forward, it is dismissed with "everything we
discussed is not heard". GOOD. Why should they? Pundits do not represent
us.Some of them I know, some of them I respect. But PLEASE concentrate on
what we do. It is not the politics and stuff of the WMF. It is sharing the
sum of all knowledge as widely as possible. Our immediate challenge is to
share in what we already have. That takes a much improved search engine,
that argument I have made for years now, Magnus added an important missing
part to it and I am sure that most readers of this list did not get this
far  and have never seen it 
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 10 March 2016 at 05:46, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
> 29.
> > I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>
>
> ​I'm a firm believer in two wrongs not making a right.
>
> This email has zero context aside from what the reader would like to infer,
> as we (the reader) are not the audience.
>
> Publishing this email was just as, if not, more irresponsible than Jimmy
> was in sending it.
>
> Those that wish to continue histrionics, take pause before *you* hit send.​
>
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html


​I'm a firm believer in two wrongs not making a right.

This email has zero context aside from what the reader would like to infer,
as we (the reader) are not the audience.

Publishing this email was just as, if not, more irresponsible than Jimmy
was in sending it.

Those that wish to continue histrionics, take pause before *you* hit send.​



-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> threats show up in my inbox.


​Me too.
​


> And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
>
>
Nope. I've read worse from you, Oliver.
​


> This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> LessWrong.[1]
>
> No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
>
>
​Many of the active posters write like this to this very public list on a
daily basis, and it is quite hurtful to many people. Much more hurtful than
this private email.

But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each
other.

Brilliant move, you civilized people.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[James Heilman]

There is not much one can say in response to an email such as that. During
the last month many within the community have come to a similar conclusions
as I did back in Oct following seeing the documents surrounding the Knight
Foundation grant.

The decision I had pushed for back in November has now been made. While we
have lost a lot of amazing people at the WMF, greater losses I believe have
been avoided. I would like to thank everyone who stuck through it all and
thank all the staff who raised concerns. I heard them loud and clear.

I think we have the opportunity not only to learn a lot from all of this
but to become stronger as a movement. I believe we need to make a few
changes. We need to remove the ability of the board to remove community
elected members "without cause" and without community involvement. We need
to have a staff representative at the board table. And I believe Jimmy
Wales should stand for community re election (at which I imagine he would
succeed).

I am here because what we do matters. The content we create has a positive
effect on people's lives. And while I do not plan to go anywhere it is
unfortunate that one needs to be so thick skinned within this movement.

James

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:48 PM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Oliver
>
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
> people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
> the community.
>
> IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
> and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
> things.
>
> I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
> trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
> whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
> protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
>
> On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> > Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> > threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> > horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
> >
> > This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> > neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> > detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> > LessWrong.[1]
> >
> > No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> > that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> > in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> > James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> > or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> > with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
> >
> > Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
> > intentionally, and if
> > this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
> > a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
> > founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
> > signed up for them.
> >
> > And if you instead don't understand why this
> > sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
> > you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
> > find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
> > productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
> > you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
> > you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
> > demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
> > a part of.
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> > [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
> > brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
> > people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
> > disagreeing with an idea
> > http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
> >> 29.
> >> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
> >>
> >> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> >> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> >> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> >> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
> >>
> >> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
> >> response to this list message 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm really not sure how this relates to this thread. If you're
interested in discussing the decision in 06, there's another thread
for that.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:48 PM, David Emrany  wrote:
> Oliver
>
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
> people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
> the community.
>
> IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
> and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
> things.
>
> I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
> trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
> whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
> protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
>
> On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
>> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
>> threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
>> horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
>>
>> This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
>> neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
>> detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
>> LessWrong.[1]
>>
>> No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
>> that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
>> in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
>> James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
>> or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
>> with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
>>
>> Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
>> intentionally, and if
>> this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
>> a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
>> founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
>> signed up for them.
>>
>> And if you instead don't understand why this
>> sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
>> you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
>> find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
>> productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
>> you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
>> you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
>> demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
>> a part of.
>>
>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
>> [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
>> brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
>> people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
>> disagreeing with an idea
>> http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>>> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
>>> 29.
>>> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>>>
>>> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
>>> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
>>> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
>>> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>>>
>>> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
>>> response to this list message of mine:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>>>
>>> -Pete
>>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message --
>>>
>>> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>>>
>>> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>>>
>>> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>>>
>>> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>>>
>>>
>>> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
>>> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
>>> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
>>> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
>>> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>>>
>>> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
>>> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
>>> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>>>
>>> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
>>> one.
>>>
>>> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
>>> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Kevin Gorman]

Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving, intentionally,
and if this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it
in a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a founder.
Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have signed up for
them.

*Unfortunately, I'm going to have to second this pretty loudly.

---
Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:48 PM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Oliver
>
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
> people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
> the community.
>
> IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
> and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
> things.
>
> I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
> trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
> whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
> protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
>
> On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> > Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> > threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> > horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
> >
> > This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> > neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> > detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> > LessWrong.[1]
> >
> > No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> > that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> > in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> > James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> > or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> > with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
> >
> > Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
> > intentionally, and if
> > this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
> > a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
> > founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
> > signed up for them.
> >
> > And if you instead don't understand why this
> > sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
> > you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
> > find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
> > productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
> > you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
> > you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
> > demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
> > a part of.
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> > [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
> > brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
> > people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
> > disagreeing with an idea
> > http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
> >> 29.
> >> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
> >>
> >> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> >> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> >> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> >> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
> >>
> >> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
> >> response to this list message of mine:
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
> >>
> >> -Pete
> >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >>
> >> -- Forwarded message --
> >>
> >> *From: *Jimmy Wales
> >>
> >> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
> >>
> >> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
> >>
> >> *Subject: **A conversation?*
> >>
> >>
> >> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
> >> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
> >> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
> >> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
> >> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
> >>
> >> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
> >> Some of the things 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[David Emrany]

Hi Adam

I believe you better understand how the robbery happened by studying
the way the composition of the Board and WMF's senior functionaries
rotated between 2005 to 2010. You can access these online from the
government websites where WMF filed them

David

On 3/9/16, Adam Wight  wrote:
> I need some help researching the history of the Wikimedia Foundation's
> membership status.  It's very slow going, and we could use the help of
> people who understand nonprofit law, with experience practicing in Florida
> a definite plus.
>
> In the meantime, here's one more interesting lead: [1]  This is a list of
> filings made with the Florida Division of Corporations.  Bylaws are not
> filed with the State [2], so I'm still unclear about how the Wikimedia
> Foundation would have reported the change from a membership to a
> non-membership organization.  The last paragraph of this pamphlet addresses
> our question, unfortunately the pamphlet is written for Maine and not
> Florida: [3]  I'll quote it here for convenience, because it's relevant,
> and sort of reassuring to know that other people have had the same problems.
>
>> It is not uncommon for an organization to have been established with
> legal members years ago, without much thought given to the matter. Often,
> in the hustle and bustle of things, the membership aspect has withered away
> and the organization is no longer following its burdensome, albeit
> well-intentioned, articles and bylaws provisions on membership. A Board in
> this position can do one of three things: It can amend the articles and
> bylaws so as to become a non-membership organization (although usually this
> step requires the vote of the members, so can be easier said than done).
> It can change its practices so as to start complying with the membership
> provisions. A third and perilous option is to ignore the issue, and hope no
> one notices or cares.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
> Disclaimer: I am employed full-time by the Wikimedia Foundation, but this
> is a personal letter. Statements made from this email account are my own,
> and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.
>
> [1]
> http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION%20N03053230=domnp-n0305323-6dc7ff3a-b7ba-4c97-9b9e-4545cef1ca0a=wikimedia%20foundation=WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION%20N03053230
> [2] https://efile.sunbiz.org/Profit_Filing_Help.html
> [3]
> http://www.nonprofitmaine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PrimerMembershipNonprofitOrganizations.pdf
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM Adam Wight  wrote:
>
>> Hi Florence,
>>
>> Thanks for jumping into this conversation and sharing your illuminating
>> perspective as an "old timer" :-)  I wanted to take a moment to also thank
>> you for your initiatives at the time, it's thrilling to imagine what might
>> have happened if more people had taken an interest in your "less easy
>> way"[1] of developing membership into a concrete governance model like the
>> Apache Software Foundation[2].  Without the open, constructive letters you
>> were writing at the time to communicate between the Board and Wikimedians,
>> we couldn't be having this conversation now.
>>
>> I'd love to hear any more thoughts about how we might have, or still
>> could, work around the Florida recordkeeping requirements,[3] Alex Roshuk
>> for example suggested that our database may have been an adequate
>> membership roster, because "names and addresses" could possibly be
>> interpreted to allow for pseudonyms and email addresses or a WMF P.O. box,
>> as long as there was no intent to defraud.[4]  Brad Patrick's input on
>> this
>> would be invaluable as well, thank you for pinging him.  It seems like he
>> might have recognized that this was uncharted legal territory, and pushed
>> for a conservative revision of the bylaws to reduce risks and eliminate
>> the
>> open questions?
>>
>> Adam
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2006-June/067648.html
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
>> [3]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy#Recordkeeping_requirements
>> [4]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Thadman/Give_Back_Our_Membership#A_few_clarifications
>> "You seem to think that there is something irreconcilable with
>> pseudonymous
>> contributions and membership"
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Florence Devouard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 27/01/16 19:30, SarahSV a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Florence Devouard 
 wrote:

 I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.

> But ianal...
>
> I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.
>
> I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps
> he
> might be willing to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[David Emrany]

Oliver

I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
the community.

IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
things.

I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.

David

[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/

On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
>
> This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> LessWrong.[1]
>
> No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
>
> Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
> intentionally, and if
> this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
> a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
> founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
> signed up for them.
>
> And if you instead don't understand why this
> sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
> you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
> find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
> productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
> you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
> you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
> demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
> a part of.
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
> brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
> people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
> disagreeing with an idea
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
>> 29.
>> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>>
>> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
>> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
>> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
>> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>>
>> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
>> response to this list message of mine:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>>
>> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>>
>> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>>
>> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>>
>> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>>
>>
>> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
>> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
>> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
>> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
>> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>>
>> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
>> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
>> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>>
>> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
>> one.
>>
>> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
>> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
>> don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that
>> are clearly not true.
>>
>> Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored
>> your perceptions on certain details.
>>
>> As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said
>> publicly that you wrote to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Oliver Keyes]

I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.

This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
LessWrong.[1]

No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.

Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
intentionally, and if
this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
signed up for them.

And if you instead don't understand why this
sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
a part of.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
disagreeing with an idea
http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>
> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>
> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
> response to this list message of mine:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> -- Forwarded message --
>
> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>
> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>
> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>
> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>
>
> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>
> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>
> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
> one.
>
> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
> don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that
> are clearly not true.
>
> Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored
> your perceptions on certain details.
>
> As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said
> publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a
> Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm
> fine with it. Go back and read our exchange. There's just now way to
> get that from what I said - Indeed, I specifically said that we are NOT
> building a Google-competing search engine, and explained the much lower
> and much less complex ambition of improving search and discovery.
>
> As another example, you published a timeline starting with Wikia Search.
> It's really hard for me to interpret that in any other way than to try
> to lead people down the path of the conspiracy theorists that I had a
> pet project to compete with Google which led to a secret project to
> biuld a search engine, etc. etc. You know as well as I do that's a
> false narrative, so it's very hard for me to charitably interpret that.
>
> Anyway 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Pete Forsyth]

Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29.
I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html

I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)

For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
response to this list message of mine:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

-- Forwarded message --

*From: *Jimmy Wales

*Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM

*To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman

*Subject: **A conversation?*


James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
really conducive to reaching more understanding.

I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.

One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
one.

Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that
are clearly not true.

Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored
your perceptions on certain details.

As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said
publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a
Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm
fine with it. Go back and read our exchange. There's just now way to
get that from what I said - Indeed, I specifically said that we are NOT
building a Google-competing search engine, and explained the much lower
and much less complex ambition of improving search and discovery.

As another example, you published a timeline starting with Wikia Search.
It's really hard for me to interpret that in any other way than to try
to lead people down the path of the conspiracy theorists that I had a
pet project to compete with Google which led to a secret project to
biuld a search engine, etc. etc. You know as well as I do that's a
false narrative, so it's very hard for me to charitably interpret that.

Anyway these are the kinds of things that I struggle with.
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>> release an email?
>>
>
> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>
> There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> James and cc-ed to Pete.
>
> James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>
> Sarah
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html

Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
priority.  It has gone on too long.
If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
was redacted.

-- 
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[SarahSV]

​​
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

>
> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> release an email?
>

​Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]

There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
James and cc-ed to Pete.

James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]

Sarah

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
>>
>> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
>> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
>
>
> Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
> there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and
> commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether
> or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and
> repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.
>
> You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words
> as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in
> an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of
> issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused
> recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that
> you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.
>
> Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are
> apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.

Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
release an email?

-- 
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

> One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
> "Kremlinology".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology
>
> The cycle looks like this:
> - the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
> interpret indirect clues
> - this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and
> sometimes led by people with their own private agenda
> - board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't
> done, or believing things they don't believe
> - leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions
> - leading to the board not sharing enough
>


I think the paranoia and hostility comes in good part from the number of
times you say stuff – often very emphatically – that turns out not to be
supported by the facts. (Examples: [1].) And when that happens, I don't see
you fessing up and saying "sorry"; instead, you try to smear, undermine and
intimidate those who point the contradictions out.

Along with that come empty promises – sops to Cerberus – like the one
quoted here:[2]

Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."

Nothing happened after you said that, as is so often the case. The grant
agreement was only published a month later, within hours of my calling John
Bracken at the Knight Foundation, on behalf of The Signpost, who confirmed
that the Knight Foundation welcomed transparency and had no objection
whatsoever to the grant agreement being published. Previously, we had been
told – by Lila – that publishing the grant agreement would "break donor
privacy required in maintaining sustainable donor relations".[3] (Bracken
told me that as soon as he advised the WMF of our communication, the WMF
released the grant agreement.)

Yet just a couple of hours before the release of that document, you still
told the community that it was a "total lie" that there had ever been a
search engine project, or that it was part of any grant.[4]

Your behaviour comes across as completely self-serving. The overall
impression is one of complete disdain and disrespect for the community.
It's as though the community is just a means to an end to you.

There's no basis for trust. And there won't be, until you own up to and
apologise for that stuff, instead of complaining that people are
"attacking" you.

Andreas

[1] Examples:

A.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report#cite_note-3


Quote: “To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
proposing that WMF should get into the general “searching” or to try to “be
google”. It’s an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It’s a total
lie.”

Compare that to the Knowledge Engine grant agreement at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf

B. http://archive.is/hFMNV#selection-10409.0-10413.73

Quote: "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately
condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes. Writegeist is spreading
lies about me, and should be permanently blocked."

Compare that to the Wikimania speech here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVR82uP_f6Q=39m0s

C. http://archive.is/M56Wm#selection-345.0-357.95

Quote: "I just wanted to comment here on the idea that Larry Sanger had the
idea for Wikipedia. This is not correct."

Compare that to http://archive.is/kDwzh#selection-95.104-95.331
three-and-a-half years earlier:

Quote: "After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use
Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and
me!) ..."

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed
– diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=698861097

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant

[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946



> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and
> good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving
> in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.
>
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:
>
> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"


Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and
commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether
or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and
repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.

You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words
as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in
an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of
issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused
recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that
you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.

Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are
apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.

-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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reimagining WMF grants consultation: Next steps

[Alex Wang]

Apologies. Updated hyperlink:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Implementation



On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Alex Wang  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> In August, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the
>
> structure of WMF grant programs.
>
> Next steps for implementing changes based on the consultation are now
> available:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Implementation
> 
>
> Important dates to note:
>
> 1 May: Rapid Grants launch; submission forms available for new Project
> Grants program
>
> 30 May: Last day to apply for a grant under the current Project & Event
> Grants program
>
> 1 July: Project Grants and Conference Support launch
>
> Come read about the timeline and next steps for implementing changes based
> on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the
> discussion page.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
> --
> Alexandra Wang
> Program Officer
> Project & Event Grants
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> +1 415-839-6885
> Skype: alexvwang
>



-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Project & Event Grants
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
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] Reimagining WMF grants consultation: Next steps

[Alex Wang]

Hi everyone,

In August, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the

structure of WMF grant programs.

Next steps for implementing changes based on the consultation are now
available:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Implementation


Important dates to note:

1 May: Rapid Grants launch; submission forms available for new Project
Grants program

30 May: Last day to apply for a grant under the current Project & Event
Grants program

1 July: Project Grants and Conference Support launch

Come read about the timeline and next steps for implementing changes based
on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the discussion
page.

Cheers,

Alex

-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Project & Event Grants
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
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] about staff

[Lodewijk]

Maybe it is better to take a step back at what we're trying to accomplish
exactly, rather than discuss differences in how the labour market works in
different countries (which is quite interesting in itself, but maybe not
quite well placed on this list).

Lodewijk


On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Thyge  wrote:

> In Denmark, employees are entitled to elect representatives as members of
> the board of directors of incorporated companies with more than 35
> employees. They are elected between the employees, and it is not depending
> on union participation.
>
> Thyge
>
> 2016-03-09 18:22 GMT+01:00 Derek V.Giroulle :
>
> > In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more
> > representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work
> force,
> > some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen  would represent large
> > special interest groups
> > The TU would have their members and the only moment they would compete
> for
> > members is  when they present candidates in social elections
> > Companies that have no work force representation (becaue of their size)
> > would get visits from TU officials if there are problems to discuss those
> > issues with the management, nothing like " recognizing " the unions would
> > unite to represent the workforce.
> > The national railroad company tried to impose such a system and it isn't
> > working ... if the drivers union isn't invited to talks about issues
> > involving their members.. trains are not running ... as happend  nearly 2
> > dozen times last year
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> > On 09-03-16 14:50, Risker wrote:
> >
> >> Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard.  The reality is
> that,
> >> while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also
> >> many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more
> >> unions to represent the same employees.  In many parts of Canada and the
> >> U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being
> >> obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from
> >> 50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only
> >> recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.
> >>
> >> It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I
> personally
> >> have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in
> >> the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to
> >> unionize the same employees.  This is more commonplace when two
> companies
> >> are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different
> >> unions at the predecessor companies.  And in many parts of North
> America,
> >> we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand
> >> non-unionized branches.  Less than 12% of the United States workforce is
> >> unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.
> >>
> >> None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I
> >> have
> >> no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees
> >> wish to unionize.
> >>
> >> Risker/Anne
> >>
> >> On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hoi,
> >>> It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade
> union.
> >>> The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may
> >>> be
> >>> cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
> >>> willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
> >>>
> >>> A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in
> hell
> >>> should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>GerardN
> >>>
> >>> On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle <
> derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be>
>  wrote:
> 
>  Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees
> are
> >
>  free
> 
> > to join a union
> >
>  The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
>  but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
> 
>  --
>  Andy Mabbett
>  @pigsonthewing
>  http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
>  ___
>  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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Sam Klein]

>
> On 3/9/16 2:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and
> > appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body
> has
> > now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the
> > organization that it ostensibly manages that it cannot fulfill one of its
> > most basic duties: appointing an interim Executive Director.


This seems to be partly a problem of communicating what's happening.  The
board is accountable for the result, and has final say.  Replacing an ED is
indeed the most important decision a board makes. Almost always after close
consultation with senior staff.

In this case, the board and senior team have discussed succession planning
since before Sue decided to leave; I'm sure that hasn't changed in the past
months during this turmoil.  My reading is that the board signalled
publicly, to all staff, that in addition to those discussions (and the
various plans or options known to already be on the table), it was
explicitly going to give priority to the preference of senior staff. There
has been a lot of gossip recently about whether or not the board is
listening to whom, and how decisions are being made – so while this
approach wasn't maximally smooth, it was very clear.  And communicating
this on wikimedia-l was a transparent update with the community.

We should have had a larger set of contingencies lined up, and a more
explicit pipeline for new exec talent (either external or internal), while
I was on the board.  But this particular update seems sane and
considerate.  I would be happy to discuss past mistakes we can learn from,
in a different thread.

Sam
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/3/16 11:19 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> WMF in being transparent?

One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
"Kremlinology".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology

The cycle looks like this:
- the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
interpret indirect clues
- this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and
sometimes led by people with their own private agenda
- board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't
done, or believing things they don't believe
- leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions
- leading to the board not sharing enough

I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and
good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving
in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.

Rather than point out negative examples, I do want to point out a
positive example, because I think that (see the sensitivity that the
hostility generates) some are likely to see what I'm about to say as
"Jimbo doesn't want people to be critical or to ask hard questions",
which would leave me with the emotion "what's the point of trying to
talk to them?"  Because that isn't what I'm saying at all.

Today I responded to a series of criticisms of the board by Mzmcbride.
His criticisms are largely wrong, I think.  But they weren't offered in
a spirit of conspiracy mongering, maliciousness, etc.  One central point
that he's making is one that I think actually stands, although he would
be more persuasive if he stuck to that rather than throwing in some
extras: it would be better if, at all times, the WMF and the Board had
solid succession planning in case of the loss of a key executive.

That's absolutely true.  That's is one of the things that led to this
whole situation - I have a lot more to say about that, but it'll have to
wait until I finish writing up a report for public consumption about the
time I spent in California talking to staff.

So this is a strong lesson learned and for me personally a top priority
going forward - making sure that the permanent ED search is conducted
professionally and with vigor, and making sure that as quickly as
possible we have strong hires in all the vacant C-level positions and
proper succession planning as a routine matter of organizational
governance and stability.

___
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] [Affiliate-selected Board seats] Kunal Mehta (Legoktm) candidacy

[Legoktm]

Hi,

On 03/09/2016 07:57 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> I'm interested in drilling down on these issues a bit.  As far as I can
> tell, there is nothing in the actual bylaws which forbids WMF employees
> from being board members, although "conventional wisdom" seems to agree
> there is a conflict of interest in doing so.

From the bylaws[1], Article IV, Section 3, part D: "Trustees selected by
Chapters and Thematic Organizations must resign from any board,
governance, or paid positions at the Foundation, Chapters, Thematic
Organizations, and User Groups for the duration of their terms as
Trustees, but may continue to serve Chapters, Thematic Organizations,
and User Groups in informal or advisory capacities."

The same applies to community-selected and board-appointed trustees
(part C and E respectively).

> (I'm not so sure I agree
> with that conventional wisdom, but let's treat it as given for now,
> since you've already pledge to give up your WMF position in your
> nomination statement.)   AFAIK "board member" is not a paid position --
> it seems wrong (albeit laudable!) for you to give up your income (by
> donating your good work to the project on a volunteer-only basis) in
> order to aid the organization.  The Board does not meet *that* frequently.
> 
> And I have a personal interest in seeing your Shadow Namespaces work
> continue. ;)

Time permitting, I plan to continue my volunteer MediaWiki development
work, which includes shadow namespaces :)

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-_THE_BOARD_OF_TRUSTEES

-- Kunal Mehta / Legoktm

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Sam Klein]

Ariel Glenn writes:
> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently;
I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it
happen

Minutes review doesn't need to be prolonged; the longer you wait the less
participants remember.  Online board votes can be closed with a week of
discussion and four days to vote:
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Board_deliberations

If there is a dedicated scribe, rough minutes can be taken in a shared doc,
available during the meeting.  The fastest board I've been on spent 5
minutes at the end reviewing the draft minutes + any decisions made, and
shared the results right away.  This also helped reinforce any next steps
committed to.

If on the other hand draft minutes aren't available right away, you have to
whip people to look & respond (it helps for the whip to be a member of the
group, not the scribe, who might not want to press the point), and it's
easy for other events to intervene and lead to unexpected delays (since any
event can seem more urgent or important than this routine task).

SJ
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/9/16 2:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and
> appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body has
> now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the
> organization that it ostensibly manages that it cannot fulfill one of its
> most basic duties: appointing an interim Executive Director.

No one, other than you, has said any such thing.  I would argue that the
decision to work with and trust the C level team to make a firm
recommendation at this time is precisely being *in touch* with the needs
of the organization at this time.

An out-of-touch board would dictate a particular decision without an
empowering consultation with the most informed and relevant
stakeholders.  I'm glad we aren't doing that.

--Jimbo


___
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] Easier browsing of Board minutes, agendas, etc., plus summaries

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/9/16 3:46 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Jimmy, could the Board at least provide an explanation for why it has taken 
> such a long time to publish the minutes?

I don't see why not.  I've not been involved with the publishing of the
minutes personally, so I don't know the details.  I am unaware of any
particular reason other than that, as you can well imagine, we've been
pretty busy lately.

My own view is that minutes should be distributed and reviewed between
board meetings, voted on at the next regular board meeting, and
published within a day or two (subject, perhaps, to someone needing to
fly home or that sort of thing).



___
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] about staff

[Derek V.Giroulle]

In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more 
representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work 
force, some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen  would 
represent large special interest groups
The TU would have their members and the only moment they would compete 
for members is  when they present candidates in social elections
Companies that have no work force representation (becaue of their size) 
would get visits from TU officials if there are problems to discuss 
those issues with the management, nothing like " recognizing " the 
unions would unite to represent the workforce.
The national railroad company tried to impose such a system and it isn't 
working ... if the drivers union isn't invited to talks about issues 
involving their members.. trains are not running ... as happend  nearly 
2 dozen times last year


Derek

On 09-03-16 14:50, Risker wrote:

Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard.  The reality is that,
while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also
many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more
unions to represent the same employees.  In many parts of Canada and the
U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being
obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from
50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only
recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.

It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I personally
have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in
the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to
unionize the same employees.  This is more commonplace when two companies
are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different
unions at the predecessor companies.  And in many parts of North America,
we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand
non-unionized branches.  Less than 12% of the United States workforce is
unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have
no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees
wish to unionize.

Risker/Anne

On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:


Hoi,
It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union.
The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be
cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.

A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell
should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
Thanks,
   GerardN

On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:


On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle 
wrote:


Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are

free

to join a union

The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Samuel Klein]

And another is the reigning world champion in Nomic...
On Mar 9, 2016 11:19 AM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

> On 09/03/16 15:00, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> > With Computers coming down in price and Artificial Intelligence programs
> > steadily improving
>
> Yes, indeed. A machine beat a man at Go!
>
> Gordo
>
>
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[WereSpielChequers]

Don't be so hasty to rule out Donald.

With Computers coming down in price and Artificial Intelligence programs
steadily improving  it should be perfectly possible to  train an AI program
with the decision making power needed to make CEO style decisions; Remember
Chess has long had better computer players than human ones.  And having the
CEObot trained to adopt the personality, communication style and persona of
a much loved and highly successful comic artiste means they would be
something of a known and trusted quantity.

Indeed it would temporarily put us at the leading edge of technology,
though in a few years everyone will be using CEObots.

The only slight problems are that if we wanted to hire an AI CEO the
community would object to one that wasn't open source. And as a high
profile organisation we wouldn't want to be using the same licensed CEObot
as thousands of other organisations, especially if we had to pay a license
fee to Disney.



Jonathan/WereSpielChequers

>
> On 3/5/16 8:28 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> >> In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
> >>
> >> * Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director;
> >
> > Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather
> abrogating the responsibility of the Board.
>
> I think you are misunderstanding.  The Board will meet to discuss and
> approve the recommendation of the C-level managers.  In order to
> properly carry out the Board's supervisory duties, we can and should
> take advice from those who are best situated.  We have not transferred
> the legal right and responsibility onto the C-level managers - we have
> indicated to them that we trust that they will make a reasonable
> recommendation.
>
> If, contrary to all expectations, they came back with a recommendation
> for Donald Duck or Donald Trump or some other cartoon character, we'd
> obviously refuse their recommendation as would be our fiduciary duty.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[MZMcBride]

Gergő Tisza wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a
>>really amateur mistake.
>
>Not really if the roof was radioactive, and on fire.

The roof didn't blow off in a storm; it was structurally unsound. We know
this because roof repair has been in discussion for months. We know this
because the old roof will be around until the end of March 2016. If the
roof were really on fire, I think we would all hope for faster action!

>It is entirely a matter of priorities - is it more urgent to fix a
>situation that was causing serious unrest amongst staff, and was
>escalating quickly, or to compose a nice transition plan? You might
>disagree with the board's answer to that question, but there are more
>honest ways of criticizing it than attacking them for not doing
>everything at the same time.

Respectfully, I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here.

The board was aware of the issues with the roof since at least November
2015, as I understand it. Is four months really not enough time to develop
a transition plan, not for a permanent replacement, but for an interim
replacement for the roof? Nobody is saying that the Board of Trustees must
do everything at the same time. But at some point in time, the board
should exhibit some meaningful leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation.

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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[MZMcBride]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
>On 3/5/16 3:07 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in
>> this way.
>
>There are at least two things I disagree with about this remark - one
>that seeking the advice and participation and buy-in of those best
>placed to give it is in some way "abdicating responsibility".  And the
>other is that the board's objective should be to give off a "sign of
>strength".  I think attempting to show strength is a pretty silly
>objective for a board to have, and I hope we never have that as our
>objective.

I'll try to better articulate my views.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and
appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body has
now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the
organization that it ostensibly manages that it cannot fulfill one of its
most basic duties: appointing an interim Executive Director. What kind
of confidence does this instill in employees, editors, and donors? How can
you all call yourselves trustees of an organization that you're openly
admitting that you all don't understand? Is that not crazy to anyone else?

It's not simply about strength and framing it as such misses the point:
it's about leadership. It seems very worrying that when pressed to provide
real and meaningful leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation, the Board of
Trustees passes the buck and erects smoke and mirror arguments such as
"but we don't lead the Wikimedia movement!" Nobody is asking the Board of
Trustees to lead the Wikimedia movement, you're being asked to manage the
non-profit foundation to which you all pledged your support and care.

The Board of Trustees is clinically allergic to making decisions. It
chooses to be a "traditional" non-profit board when it suits it, holding
closed meetings accompanied by the barest possible meeting minutes, which
are only published months later. However, when called to act with
authority, as a traditional board might act, it demurs and points to
everyone else as the people who should be making the decisions.

The working theory currently is that the Board of Trustees has always been
weak, but that Sue covered or compensated for this weakness by taking on
some of the responsibilities that a board would typically have. Drafting a
Strategic Plan is probably the best example of this. This is very much a
shared responsibility and yet we now sit outside of a Strategic Plan. It
lapsed at the end of 2015 and no new plan has taken its place. What are
the Wikimedia Foundation targets for 2020? How is it acceptable that
neither the board nor the Executive Director have worked on this?

To be clear: I don't put much value in a colorful multi-megabyte PDF full
of platitudes, smiling faces, and unrealistic goals. However, in talking
with many people, the lack of strategy and vision (or in Lila's case, an
ever-shifting strategy and vision) for the Wikimedia Foundation is one of
the biggest and most often repeated concerns I hear. It's particularly
alarming given the enormous budget of the Wikimedia Foundation.

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] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Adam Wight]

I need some help researching the history of the Wikimedia Foundation's
membership status.  It's very slow going, and we could use the help of
people who understand nonprofit law, with experience practicing in Florida
a definite plus.

In the meantime, here's one more interesting lead: [1]  This is a list of
filings made with the Florida Division of Corporations.  Bylaws are not
filed with the State [2], so I'm still unclear about how the Wikimedia
Foundation would have reported the change from a membership to a
non-membership organization.  The last paragraph of this pamphlet addresses
our question, unfortunately the pamphlet is written for Maine and not
Florida: [3]  I'll quote it here for convenience, because it's relevant,
and sort of reassuring to know that other people have had the same problems.

> It is not uncommon for an organization to have been established with
legal members years ago, without much thought given to the matter. Often,
in the hustle and bustle of things, the membership aspect has withered away
and the organization is no longer following its burdensome, albeit
well-intentioned, articles and bylaws provisions on membership. A Board in
this position can do one of three things: It can amend the articles and
bylaws so as to become a non-membership organization (although usually this
step requires the vote of the members, so can be easier said than done).
It can change its practices so as to start complying with the membership
provisions. A third and perilous option is to ignore the issue, and hope no
one notices or cares.

Thanks,
Adam
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
Disclaimer: I am employed full-time by the Wikimedia Foundation, but this
is a personal letter. Statements made from this email account are my own,
and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.

[1]
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION%20N03053230=domnp-n0305323-6dc7ff3a-b7ba-4c97-9b9e-4545cef1ca0a=wikimedia%20foundation=WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION%20N03053230
[2] https://efile.sunbiz.org/Profit_Filing_Help.html
[3]
http://www.nonprofitmaine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PrimerMembershipNonprofitOrganizations.pdf

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM Adam Wight  wrote:

> Hi Florence,
>
> Thanks for jumping into this conversation and sharing your illuminating
> perspective as an "old timer" :-)  I wanted to take a moment to also thank
> you for your initiatives at the time, it's thrilling to imagine what might
> have happened if more people had taken an interest in your "less easy
> way"[1] of developing membership into a concrete governance model like the
> Apache Software Foundation[2].  Without the open, constructive letters you
> were writing at the time to communicate between the Board and Wikimedians,
> we couldn't be having this conversation now.
>
> I'd love to hear any more thoughts about how we might have, or still
> could, work around the Florida recordkeeping requirements,[3] Alex Roshuk
> for example suggested that our database may have been an adequate
> membership roster, because "names and addresses" could possibly be
> interpreted to allow for pseudonyms and email addresses or a WMF P.O. box,
> as long as there was no intent to defraud.[4]  Brad Patrick's input on this
> would be invaluable as well, thank you for pinging him.  It seems like he
> might have recognized that this was uncharted legal territory, and pushed
> for a conservative revision of the bylaws to reduce risks and eliminate the
> open questions?
>
> Adam
> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2006-June/067648.html
> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy#Recordkeeping_requirements
> [4]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Thadman/Give_Back_Our_Membership#A_few_clarifications
> "You seem to think that there is something irreconcilable with pseudonymous
> contributions and membership"
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
>> Le 27/01/16 19:30, SarahSV a écrit :
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Florence Devouard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.
>>>
 But ianal...

 I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.

 I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps he
 might be willing to comment on this ?


 Flo

 ​Hi Flo, thanks for doing that.

>>>
>>> There's another reference to this in the 22 October 2004 board meeting,
>>> where you agreed certain changes to the bylaws, including "​A volunteer
>>> member is not required to complete or sign and send any form to the
>>> Foundation." [1]
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>> 1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/October_22,_2004
>>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

[Risker]

Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard.  The reality is that,
while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also
many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more
unions to represent the same employees.  In many parts of Canada and the
U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being
obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from
50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only
recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.

It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I personally
have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in
the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to
unionize the same employees.  This is more commonplace when two companies
are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different
unions at the predecessor companies.  And in many parts of North America,
we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand
non-unionized branches.  Less than 12% of the United States workforce is
unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have
no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees
wish to unionize.

Risker/Anne

On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union.
> The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be
> cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
> willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
>
> A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell
> should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
> Thanks,
>   GerardN
>
> On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> > On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are
> > free
> > > to join a union
> >
> > The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
> > but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Easier browsing of Board minutes, agendas, etc., plus summaries

[Nathan]

Great work, Pete, all very interesting and useful. Thanks for dedicating
your time to do this.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> As many of you are aware, it's always been difficult to navigate
> information about the proceedings of the Board of Trustees: minutes,
> agendas, specific resolutions, notes, and commentary are split across Meta
> Wiki, WMF Wiki, various mailing lists, etc.
>
> So, I spent the last few days building a set of navigation templates on
> Meta, tidying up page names, summarizing the Board's activities in recent
> years, etc. I hope you will take a look at the before[1] and after[2] pages
> on Meta. (There's still work to be done -- any help appreciated! Speaking
> of which, thank you to MZMcBride and Rillke for helping get a useful gadget
> up and running.)
>
> == The most useful part ==
> In addition to the navigation boxes (which I hope are helpful in themselves
> to Trustees, staff, and any volunteers interested in governance issues), I
> think perhaps the most useful pieces are the Annual Summary pages I put
> together for 2014 [3] and 2015.[4] These aim to capture every resolution
> passed in each year, separated according to those focused on Board
> governance and more general votes. I have also included brief narratives
> about issues that have been widely discussed (e.g., the absence of any
> Advisory Board-related votes in 2015, and the implications of that). I have
> tried to keep this very factual, to keep it short and useful for for
> anybody interested in tracking the information. It could use additional
> eyes, and probably additional links (to significant email messages, etc.)
>
> == Curious observations ==
> This is the deepest dive I've taken into Board proceedings, and as such, a
> few interesting points struck me:
>
> * Yesterday, for the first time, minutes and resolutions from the two
> December 2015 Board meetings were published. As far as I know there was no
> announcement of this; I wonder if in these tumultuous times, this has
> slipped through the cracks. As you will see, there are several significant
> pieces of information in there, and three months is a long time to wait for
> it.
>
> * December 2015: For the first time, we learn that Guy Kawasaki was
> appointed to the Board Governance Committee (BGC). Ordinarily, a committee
> appointment might not be of great interest; however, in this case, the
> appointment came during the same meeting as the one where the BGC nominated
> Arnnon Geshuri and Kelly Battles. If I'm not mistaken, those were the only
> two candidates presented to the full board for a formal vote, meaning that
> the members of the BGC had tremendous influence in appointing those two
> seats. I think it would be worthwhile to hear from the Board whether or not
> Guy had a role in deciding what candidates were presented to the Board. Was
> this appointment fully forward-looking, or was it recognizing work that he
> had already done with the BGC? Did Guy have a role in the formal decision
> of who to present to the full Board?
>
> * December 2015: The resolution establishing the Endowment Fund, which was
> announced in a press release in January, is now referred to on the WMF
> Wiki. However, the text of the resolution has not been published. I suspect
> this is a mere oversight and will be corrected shortly; but this is a
> significant development, and it will be good to see what was actually
> decided.
>
> * December 2015: As we knew, the Board approved the FDC's recommendation.
> But the text in the Minutes and in the Resolution are interesting: (a) Many
> staff and volunteers have praised the FDC's diligence in identifying the
> WMF's performance in relation to the Annual Plan Grant standards. It would
> be interesting to hear from the Board how it takes those comments, but
> there is no mention of that in the Board resolution. (b) There are,
> however, comments about the FDC's take on Wikimedia Germany's request for
> restricted funds for Wikidata. I'm not as familiar with this issue, but it
> appears there is a bit of a power struggle going on between the FDC, WMF,
> and perhaps WMDE over this issue. This is something I hope we can all hear
> more about, as it seems significant to the future of an important Wikimedia
> project.
>
> * January 2016: (No big surprise) Kelly Battles has been added to the Audit
> Committee, and Jaime Villagomez has been appointed Board Treasurer.
>
> * Going way back to August 2014, I noticed an interesting detail. Many who
> follow the Board are aware that Alice Wiegand, who had previously been a
> Chapters-nominated Trustee, lost her bid that year for a new nomination.
> Frieda Brioschi was nominated in her place, and was appointed; Frieda had
> previously been a Trustee some years before. And the Board immediately
> appointed Alice anyway, succeeding Ana Toni, who resigned mid-term. Now,
> for the part I had not noticed before: In the same meeting where she 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

[Chandres Wikipedia]

> 
> b) In france , belgium , the netherlands , germany, scandianavian countries, 
> austria even swtizerland   any worker (wage earning)  is free to join a 
> labourunion and about 80% of private sector workers are syndicated , public 
> servants are even over 90% syndicated
> 

I don’t know where this numbers came from, but thew look quite fancy, at least 
for the french-speaking country I know

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?lang=en=385cb975-cc48-415a-8fee-820f170255d7=13
 



Charles
___
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] about staff

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union.
The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be
cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.

A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell
should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
Thanks,
  GerardN

On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle 
> wrote:
>
> > Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are
> free
> > to join a union
>
> The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
> but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Easier browsing of Board minutes, agendas, etc., plus summaries

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/9/16 4:29 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> This strikes me as highly significant:
> Frieda surely knew that the vote would be successful, and that she would
> then be faced with serving alongside a colleague who she had publicly
> opposed. I do not know Frieda at all, but this strikes me as an action few
> people would take unless there was a strong reason. I am curious what the
> rift was between the two, and especially whether it is over an issue or
> philosophical difference related to the Wikimedia movement.

I'll let them speak for themselves but would like to point out that it
is important not to immediately jump to this kind of conclusion that a
conflict between the two is the most plausible explanation at all in the
first place.  That isn't typically what it is like on our board.

--Jimbo


___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/5/16 3:07 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in
> this way.

There are at least two things I disagree with about this remark - one
that seeking the advice and participation and buy-in of those best
placed to give it is in some way "abdicating responsibility".  And the
other is that the board's objective should be to give off a "sign of
strength".  I think attempting to show strength is a pretty silly
objective for a board to have, and I hope we never have that as our
objective.

--Jimbo

___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Jimmy Wales]

On 3/5/16 8:28 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
>> In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
>>
>> * Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director; 
> 
> Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather 
> abrogating the responsibility of the Board. 

I think you are misunderstanding.  The Board will meet to discuss and
approve the recommendation of the C-level managers.  In order to
properly carry out the Board's supervisory duties, we can and should
take advice from those who are best situated.  We have not transferred
the legal right and responsibility onto the C-level managers - we have
indicated to them that we trust that they will make a reasonable
recommendation.

If, contrary to all expectations, they came back with a recommendation
for Donald Duck or Donald Trump or some other cartoon character, we'd
obviously refuse their recommendation as would be our fiduciary duty.

--Jimbo

___
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] about staff

[Fæ]

You can ask the chapters if you want, but I doubt anyone can imagine a
scenario where the answer is going to be anything but yes.

If a chapter or the WMF were (rather riskily) to refuse to officially
recognize an employee's chosen union then processes such as
 apply
and may be able to force recognition. However as employees will have
the right to take an adviser with them to any meeting relating to a
dispute over their own employment, even a small organization like WMUK
that falls outside the legal regulations would find it impossible to
keep union provided advisors out of the loop.

Fae

On 9 March 2016 at 12:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle  
> wrote:
>
>> Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are free
>> to join a union
>
> The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
> but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett

___
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] about staff

[Andy Mabbett]

On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle  wrote:

> Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are free
> to join a union

The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] about staff

[Derek V.Giroulle]

Gordo ,

a) Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees 
are free to join a union
b) In france , belgium , the netherlands , germany, scandianavian 
countries, austria even swtizerland   any worker (wage earning)  is free 
to join a labourunion and about 80% of private sector workers are 
syndicated , public servants are even over 90% syndicated


I would expect an organisation like Wikimedia to have an employee 
representation of a bout 1 representative for each 50 staff , that they 
are not represented on the board by a board-member is not a concern as 
long as there is a formal consultation and participatory platform at HR 
level where  staff is represented in matters related to employment , 
working standards and practises, health and safety and where the board 
can liaise with staff




On 09-03-16 09:46, Gordon Joly wrote:

On 05/03/16 19:45, Gordon Joly wrote:

On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation,
they are not even represented.


Then they should unionise?

Gordo


Following the arguments that unions would would not fit, does Wikimedia
UK allow unions? And other chapters with staff?

Gordo



___
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, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Gordon Joly]

On 05/03/16 19:45, Gordon Joly wrote:
> On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation,
>> they are not even represented. 
> 
> 
> Then they should unionise?
> 
> Gordo


Following the arguments that unions would would not fit, does Wikimedia
UK allow unions? And other chapters with staff?

Gordo



___
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,