Denny, there was very little substantive content in your email. As with the explanation from other trustees, this too, has the same markings of subterfuge and evasionary tactics. It has been established beyond doubt that there were "trust" issues. Repeating it or any variation thereof by another board member will not be helping the situation.
You and others constantly mention trust issues as a pre-condition, and describe situations arising from it. The glaring omission each time there is about how and why? - What did he do to lose this trust in such a short period? Did he leak sensitive information to another party or the media? Did Google, Facebook and all the Pharma companies demand his removal as tribute? Did he post the location of a super secret hideout or the location of the holy grail itself? Because the longer this is going on, the more creative the conspiracies are getting. This brings us to the issue of trust. Trust is mutual, the community trusted you and James in an election to represent them on the board, the board lost trust in James, currently, the community is losing trust in the board itself. So how should this situation be handled? Offer the board the same options or talk through the issue? Deafening silence from the board and senior staff who know and hope this blows over, will not repair the damage here, things like this keep piling up under the rug and have to addressed. On Thu, Jan 7, 2016, Denny Vrandecic <dvrande...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, > I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. > And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as > openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be > held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' > being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many > will agree, not a healthy situation. > Actually no, there aren't enough facts to agree on anything. The constant loss of "trust" does not translate well to all the uninformed parties. The gist above is, you had to write a private email to the board, and you rewrote it because you didn't trust James. > > At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board - > James included. It became clear that I was not the only Trustee who felt > that way. We had a discussion in which we openly discussed this matter. > James was asked, repeatedly, to consider a resignation, but he suggested > that it would not matter whether he resigns or whether he is voted off. I > disagreed with him on this point. > This sounds like you were the one who brought up the motion of his dismissal or at least initiated the discussion. I also don't know why you keep thinking James agreeing to a resignation would have been better or he should have consented at all? He was trusted and elected to this position. Without knowing the other facts, his decision so far seems logical. > I am, to be completely frank, rather surprised and also relieved by the > fact that the Board not only acted, but acted decisively - despite knowing > very well that there would be quite some community fallout. The Board was > not afraid to make a hard and likely unpopular decision, because it truly > believes to act in the best effectivity of the Board, and thus also the > best effectivity for the Foundation and the Movement at large. This gives > me hope in this Board. > This opinion might be in the minority. The "community fallout" that was expected is a big unknown risk. It is bringing up a lot of other issues, perhaps conflating a few, forming wild conjectures, all the while two new trustees are joining the board, we have the 15th anniversary around the corner, the strategic plan is going to be discussed/published soon, not to mention the fundraiser just wrapped up. It is at the least, a bad start to the new year. if the rest of the Board loses > the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this? > Better than this. It should have taken more effort than this to just remove an elected trustee. The board and WMF consult with many professionals on a range of issues. Perhaps some sort of mediation or consultation about this issue could have happened, even involving third parties. At the least, some sort of a hint or a public mention about the disagreements would have been helpful for the community. The more important question now is, if the rest of the community loses trust in the board, how should the community handle it? Regards Theo _______________________________________________ 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>
