Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

Hi, I just got the link of the official statement of WMF regarding internet.org. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero/Development#Regarding_Internet.org Regards, Bodhisattwa On 2 Jan 2016 05:01, "Kim Bruning" wrote: > Hi Milos, > Happy new year to you! >

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

Could we stop catastrophizing the situation to the extent of open discussion of project forks, boycotts, etc? Even if the board of trustees does turn out to have made a horrible mistake, there are many steps to remedy that short of ending the world. So far the best description I can think of

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

There are helpful remedies to restore community confidence: 1. Hold an early election. To fill the community elected seat that James has now been forced to vacate. This would even allow James to re-run. 2. Leave James' seat empty until the next planned election. Though the seat *can* be

[Wikimedia-l] Annual report for Cascadia Wikimedians User Group

(Forwarding from the announcements list, which apparently having issues again with automatic forwards to Wikimedia-l) Dear colleagues, The annual report for Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is available on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_Wikimedians/4Q_2014_and_CY_2015_report The

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

Just as you say. No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing community. If all else fails thy could just sell advertising Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim Landscheidt Sent: Saturday,

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

Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter: This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize that there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care about retaining the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

Thanks! I see it's from November. Somebody could point earlier to this and spare us u couple of emails of this month quota :P On Jan 2, 2016 09:20, "Bodhisattwa Mandal" wrote: > Hi, > > I just got the link of the official statement of WMF regarding > internet.org. >

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

On 2 January 2016 at 10:41, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > The Baylaws call them " Community-selected Trustees" - not elected (sec. 3c > of art. IV) . But - as I pointed out earlier - the language used in public-and community facing communications refers to "elections"; and - as I

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

Hi there, I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on the recent Board decision. These are my own thoughts, as a community-selected Board member who voted in the minority for the recent resolution. However, I also want to be clear that I support the outcome and the

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

Have been enjoying discussions on the subject matter. I wish we can  understand that we are laying a  precedent that would be used to judge you and I tomorrow.  ‎ Yes, the board could be right  by the decision taking against James . More so , the communities could be  right by their reactions  

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

2016-01-01 22:11 GMT+01:00 Marcin Cieslak : > > Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida > statutes it seems) > that they were "community elected". > > Saper > The Baylaws call them " Community-selected Trustees" - not elected (sec. 3c of art. IV) .

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

On 2016-01-02 09:37, Peter Southwood wrote: Just as you say. No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing community. If all else fails thy could just sell advertising Cheers, Peter This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in the past on a

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

The sky isnt falling yes it wasnt optimally handled and yes it caught the community by surprise but lets be careful here. We cant sit back and enjoy the holiday season while expecting everyone else to be dropping everything and running into to the office

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

Hi all - Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that the sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made public and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in

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

Thanks for your thoughts Dariusz. It seems there is no WMF board commitment to a single measurable action as a result of this badly handled incident. I hope for a bit more than a classic "moving forward" message without learning anything new. The unelected are entrenched and deaf to volunteer

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

Hi Dariusz, governance is not a question mark that someone can mean as he wants. In this case the real problem is connected with the stakeholders, and this is an unsolved real problem of governance. As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the board of trustees

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

I agree with Andy. Well, if it is not a election pursuant to bylaws IV (3c) why it was always announced as such [1]. So it was de-facto a election. Wasn't it? (imho) It is Ethically it is not okay to remove a "elected" member whiteout public discussion. [1]

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

hi Ilario, I don't want to fuel this discussion, so I'll just reply briefly and shut up :) Hi Dariusz, governance is not a question mark that someone can mean as he wants. In this case the real problem is connected with the stakeholders, and this is an unsolved real problem of governance. As

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

Dear Dariusz, Thank you for the response. I understand that you (and the board) want to move on. But there are in many organisations (and countries) certain powers that are 'excessive' - and I think expelling a board member is one of those. I agree there can be circumstances where this power has

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

hi Ilario, I don't want to fuel this discussion, so I'll just reply briefly and shut up :) On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the board of trustees cannot dismiss it following the action

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

Dariusz, One of the things you said gives a different impression than Patricio's official statement in an important aspect. Specifically you said: > James knew what he did wrong, but he assumed that he could > effectively use a second chance. That seems to suggest that James made recent

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

At this point, confidence in the Board has been weakened enough that no, we should not just move on. The confidence issue needs to be addressed. There are multiple ways of doing that. One is (far) more openness, as many others have suggested. Another is to have an impartial investigation of the

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

James Heilman writes: > > Dear all > > I have been accused of three things: > >1. > >Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board >decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the >board and have never given assurances

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

On 2 January 2016 at 09:24, George Herbert wrote: > > So far the best description I can think of is that we have a bunch of > people who were there struggling to describe the situation without > breaching duty to the organization or resorting to attacks, the information

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

Il giorno sab, 02/01/2016 alle 09.31 +0900, James Heilman ha scritto: > Dear all > > I have been accused of three things: > [...] Does the board agree that these three are the things contested to James? * Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board decisions; * Releasing

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

Dear Doc James, and everyone, On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, James Heilman wrote: > I have been accused of three things: > >1. Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board >decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of >

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

I appreciate your speaking up, Ben. If, while James was a board member, financial information was being withheld from him, that would indeed be another problem that should be included in the scope of an investigation of this situation by an outside party. It would also be troubling to me if there

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

On 2 January 2016 at 21:25, Kevin Gorman wrote: > Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf. Yes, thank you. These statements cast a much needed healthy light on the events leading up to James being kicked off the WMF board. ... > If documents were intentionally held from

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

Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf. I'd been debating whether or not to gather more details about the handling of this event, or for just trying to make sure that procedures went more smoothly in case any further trustee was removed, but this calls for a direct question: were documents

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

We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on issues where he has his

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

I don't believe that's "very clear" at all. You yourself said "If what Ben said is true" I think it's very possible - to the extent that Ben cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding. In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the sort you

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

Comet, I'm currently of the mind that it would be a good idea to shine the bright light of day on some of the situation inside of WMF to help us get a clear picture of the facts, from which I hope we can draw reasonable conclusions and help us to make choices that lead to improvements. At this

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

Kevin, I disagree with nothing you’ve said here. What I disagreed with was the characterization that “certainly” something untoward had taken place. pb > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote: > > Philippe - > > I totally agree with you that none of my

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

Philippe - I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest that such a thing is likely to happen. Organizations and people change over time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has been dismissed. Given the unusuality of the situation, in my

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

Philippe - Well - one of the things is - from all public indication from the BoT - it doesn't appear that it's their current inclination to do something like commission an outside review of the situation by a consultancy familiar with Florida NPO governance. I definitely don't want to pronounce

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

> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't > want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members. > I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that > numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs: > "Look,

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

This event puzzled me a lot, as I suppose it puzzles all of Wikimedians who don't know what was happening inside of the Board last couple of months. On one side, although I am not active English Wikipedian, it's obvious to me that James' integrity is on the mythical level. On the other side, I

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

Ofcourse you wouldn't see it, but still, as this issue kept dragging on, things came to light and most of us here do not agree at all with the outcome...James was elected by the community, he was not another random person the community did not trust or hear of before being added to the board which

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

"My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me to justify my removal. No reason beyond that is needed per our board by laws." Trust does go both ways, so its either 'The Hateful Eight' who are at the wrong here or just 'James'...This firing comes around the time when our Project

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated

Yes, please slow down the conversation and reduce the alarmist tones Regards, Richard (one of your moderators) On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 3:16 PM, billinghurst wrote: > The whole process of James sacking from and by the Board is disturbing > to many of us. At this

[Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated

The whole process of James sacking from and by the Board is disturbing to many of us. At this point there are many who have too much to say. The frantic nature of condemnations, extrapolations, mutterings and irrelevant "me too"-ism means that this forum is too tightly bound to too few.. If you

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

I'm quite aware of what James was trying to achieve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Foundation) and I'm fully in support of his ideas so if whatever he did was related to one of those he mentions on the link, then its quite understandable why right now I'm on his side and not on the

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

I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to emphasize that the verbiage that certainly something untoward has taken place wasn't coming from me, and would like to stress that to the rest of the list. It's just such a serious matter, that I believe outside investigation is almost

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

again, i disagree with little (if any) of what you say that. I don’t agree with the characterization, prior to any sort of investigation, that something was absolutely wrong. We don’t KNOW what’s gone on, is my point. So let’s not speculate until and unless an investigation is completed - and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated

Billing - I hope some of my earlier contributions were, well, contributions, since I do have fairly extensive training in the governance requirements of CA-based non-profits - which certainly aren't Florida-based nonprofits, but definitely share some similarities. One of the things that has

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

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Greg Grossmeier wrote: > >> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't >> want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members. >> I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that

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

I'd like to second this. Getting to the point of dismissing a trustee, whether they're community elected or not, is serious business. There should be an investigation conducted by an impartial external organisation, not to lay blame or point the finger, but to recommend changes to make sure it

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

Quite right, I didn’t mean to imply (and in retrospect i understand a reading that would miss that detail) that the verbiage in question was yours. It was not. pb > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote: > > I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to

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

I think that a broader-scoped review would be beneficial, including a review of the Board's alignment with nonprofit governance best practices, especially with respect to best practices surrounding the decision to dismiss James and the subsequent actions and comments of Board members. I believe