Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1]
Apparently referring to James's removal, Jimbo has called for "full publication of the details." [2] Given that both parties have requested transparency, and that James seems to regard that email as significant, is anything preventing its release? Sarah [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=700371563&oldid=700371273 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=707188382 On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for the contributions. > > I can imagine that it is reasonable > * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to work together with a > specific board member; > * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to publish the reasons for the > removal; > * that the WMF Board calls the removed board member to be ineligible > for future elections. > > What my problem is, is that the WMF Board takes all these decisions by > itself. The WMF Board acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner in > one organ. The Dutch would say: The butcher is reviewing his own meat. > It becomes easy to criticise such a board. > > The present situation is unfair to the removed member who is blamed in > public without a public information about the reason. The removed > board member also can only appeal to the very organ that removed him. > > The present situation is furthermore a devastating signal to the > voters. The removal decreases the value of the community elections and > makes all board seats questionable. The ultimate election is made by > the WMF Board, not the community, it seems. > > As solutions I can imagine > * to create an arbitration organ for these decisions; or > * to let the voters decide whether they want to send the removed board > member back to the board. > > Kind regards > Ziko > > > > > 2016-02-27 20:02 GMT+01:00 Kevin Gorman <[email protected]>: > > Hi all - > > > > Maria's appointment should be viewed as a replacement to that of Arnnon > > Geshuri. I like her, and I think she'd stand a fair chance in a > community > > election, but she is not and cannot be described as a community selected > > trustee at present. It's perfectly possible for boards to have members > on > > it that don't get along, even of large organizations. I've been a > trustee > > of a sizable organization and had significant disagreements with at least > > one other trustee - more significant than those between Jimmy and James. > > The fact that there is animosity between board members isn't a barrier to > > having a productive board. It's disingenious, at best, to say that James > > was dismissed because he spoke out about the knowledge engine, etc. > James > > had conversations with employees not related to the knowledge engine, but > > related to other significant issues at the WMF. It's best practice to > > inform the ED when board talks to staff, but only if informing the ED > would > > not harm the purpose of those conversations - and in this case it would. > > I'm also going to state here that I've had a number of conversations with > > employees in the same time frame James was having them, and that combined > > with other details is why I am absolutely convinced they were necessary. > > > > One of the first leveled and oftened returned to statements as to why > James > > was removed was that he had conversations with employees that were > > inappropriate. Every employee who has come forward stating they had > > conversations with James has stated that those conversations were > > necessary, and exactly the type of conversation that a trustee should be > > having when the situation has gotten to a point where they are, > > unfortunately, necessary. James had the trust of both the community and > > many WMF employees, which is why so many people who felt they needed to > > talk went to him. I have no doubt that many other trustees were doing > > important less visible work, many probably even about the same problem, > but > > James was handling an element of it - direct communication with > employees - > > that was absolutely necessary for the continued success of the > Foundation, > > even if all other aspects had been handled. > > > > It's unfortunate that James and Jimmy have gotten in to it in public, > but - > > I hate to say this, but there's no other way around it - Jimmy should be > > embarassed. He's been exceptionally disrespectful of a respected > community > > member, but worse than that, he's flat out lied on multiple occasions > about > > the situation involving James. If someone challenges me on that > statement, > > as I have time, I will compile a list of diffs and archived emails in > which > > he's done so. If the situation between James and Jimmy is such that a > > healthy board dynamic with both as trustees is not possible, then frankly > > Jimmy should step down, or at a minimum give up the concept of a > Founder's > > seat, convert it to a community elected seat, stay on as a board member > > until the next elections, and then run as an ordinary community member in > > the next set of elections. > > > > I think it should also be stated for the public record that Jimmy was the > > individual who pushed for Lila's stay to be extended (and I like Lila, I > > really do,) and for trustees to not speak with the day to day WMF > employees > > that have formed the backbone of the WMF side of the movement. I also > > don't know who put the FAQ together, but want to point out that it's not > > factually accurate to say that James cannot run in the next elections, as > > at least one official FAQ stated at one point. That would be true if he > > was a community ELECTED board member removed for cause. He wasn't, so > the > > relevant provision doesn't apply, and he's eligible to run again as soon > as > > there are faux-elections again. > > > > ---- > > Kevin Gorman > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:26 AM, James Heilman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for > >> greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I > >> plan to run in the next community (s)election. > >> > >> Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF > >> back together again and I would like to thank the current board for > taking > >> that step. We have a number of C-levels who are able to do an excellent > job > >> as interim ED. I will post more about this soon but am just heading out > to > >> ski. > >> > >> -- > >> James Heilman > >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > >> > >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> New messages to: [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
