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 error(s), that he acknowledged these errors, and that he was willing to work on avoiding them in the future. By contrast, Patricio's said: > Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had > multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct, > responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the > Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a > common understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. This seems to suggest that there was a long-standing disagreement about appropriate behavior for Board members, and despite best efforts James and the majority of the Board were not able to reach an amicable resolution. So far, James's own comments seem more in line with the narrative that there was a good faith but irreconcilable difference of opinion between himself and the majority. Would you (or James) care to clarify? -Robert Rohde On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
