I'd like to suggest we look at this decision from as objective and broad a perspective as possible, and consider any statement (or lack of any statement) from the Wikimedia Foundation from that perspective. My initial thoughts are that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are an entity that: * Controls one of the most valuable brands in the world * Leverages that control to command a budget approaching $100 million annually, mostly from $15 donations * Makes or approves decisions, with an unknown level of transparency, about how to spend that budget * Is only minimally accountable to anyone. (Four Trustees are selected by the Board itself, one is a co-founder of Wikipedia with exclusive claim to a seat, two are selected by a somewhat arcane process by the Chapters, and only three -- 30% -- are elected by Wikimedia volunteers)
With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history. Any explanation of the reasons should be commensurate, in my view, to the points outlined above. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: > I really, really hope that, as fast as one can be written, a resolution > explaining more fully the circumstances of James' departure from the board > is written and passed. If there are legal reasons that mean that his > departure cannot be more fully explained, that itself needs to be noted - > and I hope they're particularly strong reasons. Without looking up the > vote count in the last election: James has the trust of a huge segment of > the community, and also has a much stronger sense of direction in how WMF > should be steered than many of our trustees have in the past. His sudden > removal (the power mechanism I've cobbled together to have my laptop > functional today is hilarious) without further explanation looks way too > much like one of only three directly elected trustees spoke up too openly > in a way that wasn't welcomed about the directions he thought Wikimedia > should go - even though he literally published a platform before he was > elected. The sudden removal of a very well respected community elected > trustee has at least the appearance of a board that may not want to be > responsive to those who literally create it's only valuable asset. > > Best, > KG > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tito Dutta <trulyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Add me as well. > > Eager to know what happened. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
