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 to be invoked, and surely I'm more than willing to assume good faith.
However, the use of such power (especially when dismissing a community selected board member) comes with a responsibility to explain /why/ the person was expelled towards the electorate. Patricio did a poor job at it (he focused on process) and your elaboration makes some suggestions/nods in which direction to look for an answer. I hope you understand that people keep trying to figure out why James was dismissed. Even if you can't share details, the general reason should, imho, be shared. James suggests in his email that he was dismissed for two reasons primarily (the third point he makes, is after the dismissal, hence irrelevant and process). Paraphrasing, he talked with staff (and the board thought he shouldn't have), and he would have leaked information. Could you, or another board member, confirm whether this is a fair representation? Again, I'm not looking for specifics if that is truely confidential information - but I think that from a community point of view, it is important to understand what kind of reasoning was at the basis for this decision. Besides that, there are many process questions still open (I agree with many that the percentage is way too fuzzy at this point, and should perhaps be clarified for the future, for example) but that is basically something that should be handled independent of this particular decision. Best, Lodewijk On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote: > 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 majority > decision, and look forward to a new community Trustee. I hope that, even > though you may continue to have questions, you will too. > > From my own perspective, the issue of "trust" had nothing to do with James’ > personal integrity. The Board however must ensure that members follow their > duties and obligations in their roles as Trustees. My personal (not > organizational) trust in James is 100%, in the sense that I would buy a car > from him, and leave him the keys to my house without hesitation. James is > an exceptional individual and an amazing Wikipedian. I feel privileged to > know him. > > Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can > explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself > considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others > reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and > admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board > member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also > understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did. > > I do want to comment on one point very important to me: This decision does > not signal a shift on the Board’s attitude towards community > representation, and does not alter our commitment to an active role for the > community representatives on the Board. I also want to be clear that the > Board decision was not based on a difference of opinion about direction or > strategy. > > At this stage, I think we basically need to move on. The Board is committed > to community-nominated membership, and we are actively working with the > most recent Election Committee on a plan to fill the open > community-selected seat . We expect James to stay in the movement and > continue to do the amazing things he is well known for. Until recently, I > was also a member of the community, watching the Board’s decisions. I > understand the desire to have more details. At the same time, I genuinely > ask for you to assume good faith from the Board. > > I do, however, agree that the Foundation and the Board can be better at > communicating, and be more open. While we're not there yet, I am optimistic > about the direction of the change, and I know that 2016 will bring more > open community discussions around both strategy and our annual planning in > consultation with the movement. > > I join my colleagues in wishing my friend, James, the absolute best in his > next ventures. I am excited that he plans to remain an active member of our > movement, and I look forward to seeing him on-wiki and at community > gatherings. > > Best, > > Dariusz a.k.a. pundit > 02.01.2016 6:44 AM "Kevin Gorman" <kgor...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > 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 the > > interests of the movement to remove him, and that it should probably be > > examined publicly whether or not it was a good or necessary idea. I'm > not > > calling for anyone's heads even if a mistake was made; I know and respect > > many of the board as well, and don't doubt their devotion to Wikimedia - > I > > just question if a mistake was made, and think that we should be > > transparent enough as a movement to figure out a mistake was made in a > > transparent fashion. If a mistake was made, then it would be a good idea > > to examine both procedures around the removal of board members, and also, > > potentially to ensure that the idea of transparency believed in by the > > Board is the same as the idea of transparency believed in by much of the > > rest of the movement. We've already learned one valuable lesson from > this: > > Board should probably consult with comms before holding a meeting likely > > to generate controversy, even if that decision isn't 100% yet. > > > > Best, > > KG > > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten < > > m...@anderswennersten.se> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 community. At most, we have indications that they > > did > > >> not handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that > > Wikipedia > > >> and sister projects will collapse in say ten years because some novel > > >> technical means become available and we do not manage to respond > > properly > > >> is in my opinion a billion times higher than that we will collapse > > because > > >> BoT or WMF staff function sub-optimally in their daily communications > > with > > >> the community. Let us discuss real things and not what happens if > > Martians > > >> come to enslave us. > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Yaroslav > > >> > > >> > > > I agree and I also think we should not over dramatize that someone is > at > > > odds with a group and leave the group (by resignation or by forced > > leaving). > > > > > > I have myself been part of numerous groups in my life, probably several > > > hundreds, and have left in being at odds with the group/employer > almost a > > > dozen times. A very few times by being sacked or ousted and mostly with > > me > > > resigning, but then feeling I have had very sound reasons for taking my > > > position making me becoming at odds with the rest. > > > > > > But in no case after the resignation has been a fact, have I continued > to > > > dwell publicly over it. A fact is a fact and it is better to go on with > > > life for all parties (and it is enough my loyal wife has had to hear > "my > > > side of it") . > > > > > > In this case I know first hand a majority of the Board and I know them > to > > > be true to the values and belief of the movement, and as individuals > > being > > > caring, and the opposite to my most hated disliked personality, power > > > hungry persons without empathy. > > > > > > Anders > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
