Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :) - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org
Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
: Next unread message
: Previous unread message
j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
List overview
All Threads
newer
Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)
older
Nigeria Independence Day global...
Conference and Events Funds Update
First Post
Replies
Stats
Threads by
month
----- 2026 -----
April
March
February
January
----- 2025 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2024 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2023 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2022 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2021 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2020 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2019 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2018 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2017 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2016 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2015 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2014 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2013 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2012 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2011 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2010 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2009 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2008 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2007 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2006 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2005 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2004 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
Maggie Dennis
24 Jun
2021
24 Jun
'21
2:14 a.m.
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a broad
range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this
week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation
to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to
tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting
Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving
onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me
as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited
that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly
given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more
than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase
will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into
our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing her
at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be joining
one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Attachments:
attachment.htm
(text/html — 5.5 KB)
Show replies by date
Chris Keating
24 Jun
24 Jun
2:56 a.m.
Hi Maggie,
I am flabbergasted.
It is verging on inappropriate for the WMF to immediately hire a trustee
the moment they step down from the Board.
I could just about understand if the focus was solely on the executive
transition. But this seems much wider.
As a former affiliate Chair I would never have dreamed of taking a job
right away at the affiliate I worked for. That would have created the
impression that volunteer trustees spent their time on the Board creating
remunerated roles for thenselves.
And it would have broken rules that we introduced, under direct threat by
the WMF of being de-recognised as an affiliate.
I am genuinely baffled why anyone thought this was a good idea, and while I
have the greatest respect for all involved, I urge Maria, the board, and
you to reconsider.
Regards,
Chris
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021, 21:45 Maggie Dennis,
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a broad
range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this
week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation
to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to
tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting
Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving
onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me
as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited
that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly
given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more
than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase
will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into
our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Philip Kopetzky
3:02 a.m.
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF, through
it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the lines
between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures (and
rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a cooldown
period before switching between board and being employed by the same
organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a broad
range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this
week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation
to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to
tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting
Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving
onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me
as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited
that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly
given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more
than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase
will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into
our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
3:22 a.m.
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has
been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I
have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
(and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this
week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation
to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to
tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting
Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving
onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me
as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited
that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly
given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more
than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase
will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into
our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Maggie Dennis
3:30 a.m.
Hello, all.
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is
an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she
was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her
departure.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has
been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I
have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
(and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this
week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation
to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to
tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting
Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving
onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me
as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited
that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly
given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more
than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase
will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into
our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more
detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
attachment
attachment.htm
Paulo Santos Perneta
3:36 a.m.
Paid "independent consultant"?
P.
Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
escreveu no dia quarta, 23/06/2021
à(s) 23:01:
...
Hello, all.
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is
an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she
was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her
departure.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has
been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I
have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
(and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation
this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the
Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s
Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will
be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee
in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will
report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group.
I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment,
particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is.
:) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in
the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we
continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more
detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Michael Maggs
3:39 a.m.
I’m afraid that’s a distinction without a difference so far as conflict of interest is concerned.
Surely the board can’t have approved such a thing?
Michael
...
On 23 Jun 2021, at 23:01, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, all.
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is not Foundation staff. She is an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her departure.
Best regards,
Maggie
...
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF, through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures (and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience & Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department. I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising. Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm, in which she has a broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail! I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
3:42 a.m.
Maggie,
Please be clear. How many hours a week, what remuneration, if any.
Andreas
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is
an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she
was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her
departure.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has
been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I
have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
(and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation
this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the
Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s
Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will
be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee
in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will
report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group.
I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment,
particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is.
:) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in
the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we
continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more
detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Chris Keating
3:46 a.m.
Hi Maggie,
Thanks for the clarification, but that doesn't really affect anything.
Staff roles vs contractors/consultants are not that different. And the fact
that you didn't discuss the post with Maria while she was on the Board
doesn't mean it isn't a governance problem. First because decisions can be
made and rules can be bent for people in positions of influence even
without an explicit discussion. Second because, while I don't doubt your
word, the appearance matters as well as the substance. Third because I
really can't believe the WMF would tolerate this from an affiliate who
received grants.
I'll be quite straightforward, this is a disaster for the credibility of
the WMF's governance and it must be immediately reversed.
If the WMF Board has no rules to prevent this situation happening, then I
am amazed - and would really be asking for a refund for whatever was paid
in the 2019 board governance review.
Thanks,
Chris
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is
an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she
was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her
departure.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has
been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I
have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
(and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation
this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the
Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s
Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will
be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee
in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will
report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group.
I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment,
particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is.
:) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in
the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we
continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more
detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
effe iets anders
10:37 a.m.
Hi Maggie, Maria,
while I'm sure everything is above board legally, and it follows all HR
policies that the WMF has in place, it does have a weird whiff when I read
this. While I think it's great for Maria to be able to put her experience
to good use and while the WMF board probably benefits from these
experiences being documented, it definitely does give a weird set of
perceived conflicts of interest. I'm afraid that there is not really any
level of assurances that can take this away.
While I'm sure that you thought this through ethically, and consulted
community members how this would be perceived, it leaves an odd stain
because it leaves it up to the imagination of the reader whether there
might have been a trade of some kind. It may well be that the compensation
is 'in line with market rates' (whatever that means) and merely to make
sure that Maria has the actual time to write down these things, rather than
being absorbed in other jobs. To be honest, I don't really care about the
exact amount - it is clear that it is significantly more than a
compensation for out-of-pocket expenses. Whether it is technically a
contractor or consultant (based on the description, you could have fooled
me if you would have said contractor or temporary staff member instead) I
agree with the previous speakers that it at the very least acts against the
spirit of all policies that limit transition between staff and board roles.
It leaves me with this odd feeling: while I'm happy that Maria will
transfer some knowledge, I'm rather sad to see that this strategy process
is even further complicated beyond its already existing complexity.
-- Lodewijk
Lodewijk
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 3:17 PM Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Hi Maggie,
Thanks for the clarification, but that doesn't really affect anything.
Staff roles vs contractors/consultants are not that different. And the fact
that you didn't discuss the post with Maria while she was on the Board
doesn't mean it isn't a governance problem. First because decisions can be
made and rules can be bent for people in positions of influence even
without an explicit discussion. Second because, while I don't doubt your
word, the appearance matters as well as the substance. Third because I
really can't believe the WMF would tolerate this from an affiliate who
received grants.
I'll be quite straightforward, this is a disaster for the credibility of
the WMF's governance and it must be immediately reversed.
If the WMF Board has no rules to prevent this situation happening, then I
am amazed - and would really be asking for a refund for whatever was paid
in the 2019 board governance review.
Thanks,
Chris
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She
is an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while
she was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after
her departure.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this
has been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation
I have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
(and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation
this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the
Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s
Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will
be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee
in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will
report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group.
I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment,
particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is.
:) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in
the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we
continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to
seeing her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will
be joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more
detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
10:59 a.m.
Maggie,
You say, María "did not discuss this role with me while she was on the
Board. She *quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her departure*
."
It seems to me you are paying lip service here to the idea that it's
inappropriate for a sitting board member to negotiate transitioning to a
lucrative consultant's job, for all the reasons others in this thread have
mentioned.
But three weeks ago, when María announced she would be stepping down[1],
she already said:
"The Foundation has asked me to consider an advisory role to support *Movement
Strategy and the onboarding of new trustees* and the new CEO/ED, to help
support leadership and this strategic transition."
This is surely the same job you just announced:
"Maria Sefidari has agreed to consult with the Foundation on *Movement
Strategy and the ongoing Board evolution* for the upcoming year".
So in fact María did discuss this while still on the board. Perhaps not
with you personally, but how is it ethically "quite right" in your mind
that she shouldn't have discussed it with you beforehand, but ethically
fine for her to have discussed it at length with others?
I guess we are supposed to believe that María expressed no interest
whatsoever in such a role, and was entirely surprised and flattered when
everybody else came up to her and suggested it. Right? Did she maybe have
to be talked into accepting money for the role?
I now understand Dariusz' comment in the same thread three weeks ago, when
he said to María[2]:
"This is not a farewell, as I'm confident you will stay in the movement
indifferent roles, be they *formal (like the one you're transitioning to)*
or informal, like always".
With the benefit of hindsight, this did sound like a paid role even then.
And in fact, Amanda's email just now[3] confirms that this was discussed
long before María stepped down.
María, with her wealth of experience, is surely aware that affiliates have
been advised to strenuously avoid such conflicts of interest over the
years. This is very much a case of "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
Why should anyone stand for that? If María wants to give advice, serve the
mission, she can do so as a volunteer, like everyone else.
Amanda, your various explanations as to why a paid role for María is
necessary now that she has left the board, and why it's the best use of
donors' money, fail to dispel the sense of plain *weirdness* attached to
this.
Andreas
[1]
[2]
[3]
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She is
an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while she
was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after her
departure.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta
trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Greetings,
This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
been happy to see the addition.
"to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this has
been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation I
have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
after his disassociation.
But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
...
Hi Maggie,
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
(and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
given over the last few years.
I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
implementation process.
All in all I can only call for a governance overhaul at the WMF so that
murky situations like this don't happen again.
Quite frustrated regards,
Philip
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation
this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the
Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s
Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will
be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee
in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will
report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group.
I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment,
particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is.
:) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in
the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we
continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more
detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Michael Maggs
3:21 a.m.
Maggie
I am astounded.
Unless this is a non-remunerated role, taking on a board member immediately after they step down is an absolutely flagrant breach of one of the basic tenets of good corporate governance, the avoidance of conflict of interest. You and the WMF board must be very well aware of that, as you have spent years (rightly) insisting on absolute probity for the affiliates.
Please tell me that this is an unpaid position.
Michael
...
On 23 Jun 2021, at 21:46, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience & Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department. I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising. Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm, in which she has a broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail! I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
aketon＠wikimedia.org
10:20 a.m.
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with similar consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead. This needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered. Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered stepping down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at the helm of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and brought this staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources Committee, and ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last executive session of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does not generally discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that the Board knew about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest policy even if that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from her trusteeship for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were raised about Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this, and because I want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant staff. However, I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta documentation and would appreciate more information on where this policy can be found so we can review it when we next update our policies, and ensure we consistently uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree we want to be consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been raised pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we do not discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums, although we do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US nonprofit on our Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and privacy, and we find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances our values of transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all consultant compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and market comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and this is in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
Risker
10:57 a.m.
There's a big leap between the "advisory" role that Maria mentioned in her
notice of resignation and a full-on consultancy. In that email, dated one
day after the June Board of Trustees meeting chaired by Maria, she told us
that the WMF had already approached her to take on the "advisory" role;
this email was sent to the community *before* Maria's resignation had taken
effect. Maria is not specific on who approached her to take on the
advisory role before her resignation took effect, but clearly somebody did,
or she would not have mentioned it in her farewell email.
I am very sad about all of this. It taints the entire governance process.
It is precisely the type of issue that grants committees at all levels have
been asked to "address" in their comments and recommendations; I know for a
fact that governance and leadership issues like this had a very significant
impact on grants recommendations for multiple grantee organizations in the
past, usually with the urging of WMF staff and leadership.
It also does nothing to reassure the community about the strategy process,
especially at a time when the absence of a community-selected board member
would have been particularly useful. Instead, we now have a paid
consultant for a position that (as best I can tell) was never advertised,
posted, or even head-hunted.
And I'm sad for Maria, who has made many contributions to the movement, and
who is now in a situation where whatever work she was contracted to do is
going to be made so much more difficult because of this.
Just because something is legal and does not actively violate the bylaws,
doesn't make it the right thing to do. The message that's being sent here
isn't helpful to the movement. It puts others who are trying to carry the
movement message out to new and existing communities into a really
difficult position.
Risker/Anne
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 00:51,
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to
clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the
engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that
we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with similar
consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the
Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead. This
needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered stepping
down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at the helm
of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and brought this
staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources Committee, and
ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last executive session
of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does not generally
discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that the Board knew
about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest policy even if
that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from her trusteeship
for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were raised about
Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this, and because I
want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant staff. However,
I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta documentation and
would appreciate more information on where this policy can be found so we
can review it when we next update our policies, and ensure we consistently
uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree we want to be
consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been raised
pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we do not
discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums, although we
do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US nonprofit on our
Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and privacy, and we
find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances our values of
transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all consultant
compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and market
comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and this is
in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Chris Keating
5:25 p.m.
Hi Amanda,
Thanks for the detailed comments. However, still, this doesn't really help
that much.
From your email it seems that over several months the WMF has created a new
role which just happens to be ideal for its outgoing Chair to fill, and
indeed could scarcely be filled by anyone else because it so closely
relates to the Board's priorities.
If this is allowed to happen then it raises serious questions about whether
Board members make decisions about the WMF's priorities in order to create
consultancy posts for themselves. As it happens I don't believe that is
what has happened here, but one could be forgiven for drawing that
conclusion. There is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest. And
there is a real risk of undermining the credibility of pretty much any
decision the Board might take in future, if people - the community, donors
or the media - start to believe that those decisions are being taken
because Board members will be eased into paid positions to implement them.
No amount of reassurances that conversations happened in a particular order
can avoid this. The letter and indeed the spirit of the WMF's conflict of
interest policy may have been followed. But the object of the WMF's
conflict of interest policy has not been achieved, quite the opposite. One
can follow a policy and end up making the wrong decision, and that's what's
happened here.
Thanks,
Chris
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 5:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to
clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the
engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that
we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with similar
consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the
Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead. This
needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered stepping
down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at the helm
of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and brought this
staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources Committee, and
ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last executive session
of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does not generally
discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that the Board knew
about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest policy even if
that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from her trusteeship
for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were raised about
Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this, and because I
want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant staff. However,
I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta documentation and
would appreciate more information on where this policy can be found so we
can review it when we next update our policies, and ensure we consistently
uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree we want to be
consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been raised
pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we do not
discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums, although we
do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US nonprofit on our
Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and privacy, and we
find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances our values of
transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all consultant
compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and market
comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and this is
in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Dan Garry (Deskana)
25 Jun
25 Jun
9:54 p.m.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 12:56, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Thanks for the detailed comments. However, still, this doesn't really help
that much.
From your email it seems that over several months the WMF has created a
new role which just happens to be ideal for its outgoing Chair to fill, and
indeed could scarcely be filled by anyone else because it so closely
relates to the Board's priorities.
If this is allowed to happen then it raises serious questions about
whether Board members make decisions about the WMF's priorities in order to
create consultancy posts for themselves. As it happens I don't believe that
is what has happened here, but one could be forgiven for drawing that
conclusion. There is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest. And
there is a real risk of undermining the credibility of pretty much any
decision the Board might take in future, if people - the community, donors
or the media - start to believe that those decisions are being taken
because Board members will be eased into paid positions to implement them.
No amount of reassurances that conversations happened in a particular
order can avoid this. The letter and indeed the spirit of the WMF's
conflict of interest policy may have been followed. But the object of the
WMF's conflict of interest policy has not been achieved, quite the
opposite. One can follow a policy and end up making the wrong decision, and
that's what's happened here.
I agree wholeheartedly with Chris's eloquent comments on this situation.
What has happened here is very inappropriate, and deeply troubling.
Dan
attachment
attachment.htm
The Cunctator
10:26 p.m.
It's pretty embarrassing that regional Wikimedias have better governance
standards than the (extraordinarily wealthy) international Foundation.
I don't understand how the Tides/Wikimedia general counsel believes that
the conflict of interest of Maria has moved directly from being Board chair
to being a paid consultant for an undisclosed amount "would be shortly
mitigated by her stepping down from her trusteeship for unrelated reasons".
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:25 PM Dan Garry (Deskana)
djgwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 12:56, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Thanks for the detailed comments. However, still, this doesn't really
help that much.
From your email it seems that over several months the WMF has created a
new role which just happens to be ideal for its outgoing Chair to fill, and
indeed could scarcely be filled by anyone else because it so closely
relates to the Board's priorities.
If this is allowed to happen then it raises serious questions about
whether Board members make decisions about the WMF's priorities in order to
create consultancy posts for themselves. As it happens I don't believe that
is what has happened here, but one could be forgiven for drawing that
conclusion. There is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest. And
there is a real risk of undermining the credibility of pretty much any
decision the Board might take in future, if people - the community, donors
or the media - start to believe that those decisions are being taken
because Board members will be eased into paid positions to implement them.
No amount of reassurances that conversations happened in a particular
order can avoid this. The letter and indeed the spirit of the WMF's
conflict of interest policy may have been followed. But the object of the
WMF's conflict of interest policy has not been achieved, quite the
opposite. One can follow a policy and end up making the wrong decision, and
that's what's happened here.
I agree wholeheartedly with Chris's eloquent comments on this situation.
What has happened here is very inappropriate, and deeply troubling.
Dan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Maggie Dennis
26 Jun
26 Jun
5:02 a.m.
Hello, all.
Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold an
open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate
email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also
available on Meta, here
This office hour will be on *June 29 at 15:00 UTC* — see
for your local time. If you
can't come, there are ways to submit questions in advance (or
simultaneously, if you don't want to join Zoom).
It's taken quite a bit of time to pull together the technical details
today, and the team will be sharing information in other fora over the next
few days, but we wanted to follow up on this thread ASAP.
I hope to see you there.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to
clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the
engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that
we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with similar
consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the
Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead. This
needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered stepping
down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at the helm
of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and brought this
staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources Committee, and
ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last executive session
of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does not generally
discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that the Board knew
about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest policy even if
that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from her trusteeship
for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were raised about
Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this, and because I
want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant staff. However,
I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta documentation and
would appreciate more information on where this policy can be found so we
can review it when we next update our policies, and ensure we consistently
uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree we want to be
consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been raised
pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we do not
discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums, although we
do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US nonprofit on our
Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and privacy, and we
find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances our values of
transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all consultant
compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and market
comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and this is
in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
attachment
attachment.htm
Chris Keating
3:06 p.m.
Hi Amanda and Maggie,
On the whole I am a great fan of this kind of office hour and believe it
does a lot to improve communication between the WMF and community members.
However.... this is not a problem of communication. The people speaking up
in this thread are largely not the people who are inherently sceptical of
the WMF (indeed, two of them are former chairs of the WMF Board of
Trustees!). Nor are they people who don't understand the situation or the
context. They are mainly people who are quite aware of the context, often
know some of the people involved personally, and are already placing a
charitable interpretation on the statements that have already been made.
And *still* reach the conclusion that the situation is unsustainable and
the only way out of it is to reverse the decision that's been made.
Thanks,
Chris
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:33 AM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold an
open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate
email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also
available on Meta, here
This office hour will be on *June 29 at 15:00 UTC* — see
for your local time. If you
can't come, there are ways to submit questions in advance (or
simultaneously, if you don't want to join Zoom).
It's taken quite a bit of time to pull together the technical details
today, and the team will be sharing information in other fora over the next
few days, but we wanted to follow up on this thread ASAP.
I hope to see you there.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to
clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the
engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that
we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with similar
consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the
Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead. This
needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered
stepping down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at
the helm of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and
brought this staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources
Committee, and ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last
executive session of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does
not generally discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that
the Board knew about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest
policy even if that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from
her trusteeship for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were
raised about Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this,
and because I want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant
staff. However, I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta
documentation and would appreciate more information on where this policy
can be found so we can review it when we next update our policies, and
ensure we consistently uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree
we want to be consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been raised
pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we do not
discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums, although we
do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US nonprofit on our
Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and privacy, and we
find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances our values of
transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all consultant
compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and market
comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and this is
in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Paulo Santos Perneta
3:41 p.m.
I'm not sure reversing such a decision, with the consequent indemnisation
that most probably WMF will have to pay to Maria Sefidari, is the best
solution out of this conundrum.
If the evil is already done, it should be solved in a way that best serves
the Movement, and throwing such indemnization costs out of the window
probably is not the best.
Thanks,
Paulo
Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
escreveu no dia sábado,
26/06/2021 à(s) 10:37:
...
Hi Amanda and Maggie,
On the whole I am a great fan of this kind of office hour and believe it
does a lot to improve communication between the WMF and community members.
However.... this is not a problem of communication. The people speaking up
in this thread are largely not the people who are inherently sceptical of
the WMF (indeed, two of them are former chairs of the WMF Board of
Trustees!). Nor are they people who don't understand the situation or the
context. They are mainly people who are quite aware of the context, often
know some of the people involved personally, and are already placing a
charitable interpretation on the statements that have already been made.
And *still* reach the conclusion that the situation is unsustainable and
the only way out of it is to reverse the decision that's been made.
Thanks,
Chris
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:33 AM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold
an open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate
email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also
available on Meta, here
This office hour will be on *June 29 at 15:00 UTC* — see
for your local time. If you
can't come, there are ways to submit questions in advance (or
simultaneously, if you don't want to join Zoom).
It's taken quite a bit of time to pull together the technical details
today, and the team will be sharing information in other fora over the next
few days, but we wanted to follow up on this thread ASAP.
I hope to see you there.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to
clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the
engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that
we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with similar
consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the
Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead. This
needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered
stepping down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at
the helm of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and
brought this staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources
Committee, and ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last
executive session of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does
not generally discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that
the Board knew about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest
policy even if that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from
her trusteeship for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were
raised about Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this,
and because I want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant
staff. However, I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta
documentation and would appreciate more information on where this policy
can be found so we can review it when we next update our policies, and
ensure we consistently uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree
we want to be consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been raised
pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we do not
discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums, although we
do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US nonprofit on our
Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and privacy, and we
find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances our values of
transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all consultant
compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and market
comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and this is
in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Adam Wight
6:03 p.m.
+1 to Paulo's point, personally I would like to see us ease up on María and
this seemingly temporary paid role. It's not a sinecure, not an arbitrary
nepotistic position—rather, it looks like WMF would benefit.
If the people in this thread truly have the good of the organization and
the movement at heart, there are much bigger structural issues with WMF and
this is just a reminder that we have to fix these. Save your energy for
fighting actual corruption and not just the perception of it. How about we
encourage María in her advisory role to help hire an ED committed to
accountability to the communities, for example?
-Adam W.
On Sat 26. Jun 2021 at 03:12, Paulo Santos Perneta
paulosperneta@gmail.com
wrote:
...
I'm not sure reversing such a decision, with the consequent indemnisation
that most probably WMF will have to pay to Maria Sefidari, is the best
solution out of this conundrum.
If the evil is already done, it should be solved in a way that best serves
the Movement, and throwing such indemnization costs out of the window
probably is not the best.
Thanks,
Paulo
Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
escreveu no dia sábado,
26/06/2021 à(s) 10:37:
...
Hi Amanda and Maggie,
On the whole I am a great fan of this kind of office hour and believe it
does a lot to improve communication between the WMF and community members.
However.... this is not a problem of communication. The people speaking
up in this thread are largely not the people who are inherently sceptical
of the WMF (indeed, two of them are former chairs of the WMF Board of
Trustees!). Nor are they people who don't understand the situation or the
context. They are mainly people who are quite aware of the context, often
know some of the people involved personally, and are already placing a
charitable interpretation on the statements that have already been made.
And *still* reach the conclusion that the situation is unsustainable and
the only way out of it is to reverse the decision that's been made.
Thanks,
Chris
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:33 AM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold
an open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate
email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also
available on Meta, here
This office hour will be on *June 29 at 15:00 UTC* — see
for your local time. If you
can't come, there are ways to submit questions in advance (or
simultaneously, if you don't want to join Zoom).
It's taken quite a bit of time to pull together the technical details
today, and the team will be sharing information in other fora over the next
few days, but we wanted to follow up on this thread ASAP.
I hope to see you there.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like
to clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over
the engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you
that we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with
similar consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for
the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the
Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead.
This needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered
stepping down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at
the helm of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and
brought this staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources
Committee, and ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last
executive session of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does
not generally discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that
the Board knew about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest
policy even if that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from
her trusteeship for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were
raised about Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this,
and because I want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant
staff. However, I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta
documentation and would appreciate more information on where this policy
can be found so we can review it when we next update our policies, and
ensure we consistently uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree
we want to be consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been
raised pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we
do not discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums,
although we do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US
nonprofit on our Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and
privacy, and we find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances
our values of transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all
consultant compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and
market comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and
this is in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar
regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
7:53 p.m.
Adam,
I understand that you would like to see María provide advice, but this is a
volunteer organisation – everybody, WMF paid staff excepted, works, and
contributes their expertise, for free. That includes board members. And I
fail to see why a board member who – according to Form 990 data at least[1]
– has in most years worked an average of 2 hours per week for the WMF can
not be expected to provide her advice on the same basis.
Even if the Form 990 information were for some reason a gross
underestimate, I am absolutely certain that there are many Wikipedians who
have spent as many and more volunteer hours on their contributions – be it
writing outstanding articles, like SlimVirgin did for many years, or
volunteer work on various committees – than the average board member. Who
pays them?
Think about it. You can have some volunteers be more equal than others,
make them the recipients of financial favours, but it is not a recipe for
harmony, and for good reason. And if you head an organisation that relies
on volunteer labour for almost its entire process of value generation, you
should be prepared to work for it as a volunteer.
Andreas
[1]
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 1:34 PM Adam Wight
adam.m.wight@gmail.com
wrote:
...
+1 to Paulo's point, personally I would like to see us ease up on María
and this seemingly temporary paid role. It's not a sinecure, not an
arbitrary nepotistic position—rather, it looks like WMF would benefit.
If the people in this thread truly have the good of the organization and
the movement at heart, there are much bigger structural issues with WMF and
this is just a reminder that we have to fix these. Save your energy for
fighting actual corruption and not just the perception of it. How about we
encourage María in her advisory role to help hire an ED committed to
accountability to the communities, for example?
-Adam W.
On Sat 26. Jun 2021 at 03:12, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
...
I'm not sure reversing such a decision, with the consequent indemnisation
that most probably WMF will have to pay to Maria Sefidari, is the best
solution out of this conundrum.
If the evil is already done, it should be solved in a way that best
serves the Movement, and throwing such indemnization costs out of the
window probably is not the best.
Thanks,
Paulo
Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
escreveu no dia sábado,
26/06/2021 à(s) 10:37:
...
Hi Amanda and Maggie,
On the whole I am a great fan of this kind of office hour and believe it
does a lot to improve communication between the WMF and community members.
However.... this is not a problem of communication. The people speaking
up in this thread are largely not the people who are inherently sceptical
of the WMF (indeed, two of them are former chairs of the WMF Board of
Trustees!). Nor are they people who don't understand the situation or the
context. They are mainly people who are quite aware of the context, often
know some of the people involved personally, and are already placing a
charitable interpretation on the statements that have already been made.
And *still* reach the conclusion that the situation is unsustainable and
the only way out of it is to reverse the decision that's been made.
Thanks,
Chris
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:33 AM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold
an open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate
email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also
available on Meta, here
This office hour will be on *June 29 at 15:00 UTC* — see
for your local time. If you
can't come, there are ways to submit questions in advance (or
simultaneously, if you don't want to join Zoom).
It's taken quite a bit of time to pull together the technical details
today, and the team will be sharing information in other fora over the next
few days, but we wanted to follow up on this thread ASAP.
I hope to see you there.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like
to clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over
the engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you
that we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with
similar consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for
the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both
the Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead.
This needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered
stepping down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at
the helm of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and
brought this staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources
Committee, and ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last
executive session of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does
not generally discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that
the Board knew about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest
policy even if that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from
her trusteeship for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were
raised about Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this,
and because I want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant
staff. However, I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta
documentation and would appreciate more information on where this policy
can be found so we can review it when we next update our policies, and
ensure we consistently uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree
we want to be consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been
raised pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we
do not discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums,
although we do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US
nonprofit on our Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and
privacy, and we find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances
our values of transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all
consultant compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and
market comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and
this is in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar
regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Dan Szymborski
9:52 p.m.
There is nobody in existence whose advice is worth crossing serious bright
lines in ethics of corporate governance and quite possibly legal ones. This
isn't a parking ticket.
Whether the offer and acceptance were made in good faith or bad faith leads
to the same conclusion: a completely unacceptable situation that must be
remedied aggressively, not papered-over with corporate doublespeak. Whether
poor ethics or poor judgment, neither trait ought to be welcome in a
decision-making capacity. I would not want *any* person with input on the
ED position who thought this was actually a good idea, even assuming the
best possible faith. For this kind of skating on the edge of inurement, we
should already be beyond the initial question of dismissal of the hire to
the question of other, internal restructuring. This is several orders of
magnitude worse than anything Dr. Heilman was removed for in 2015. If
significant measures are not taken to remedy this situation, then this
should be basically the only issue in the upcoming board elections, and it
would be a shame to have an election in which the community is trying to
deal with serious lapses of ethics or judgment rather than trying to decide
the WMF's other, mission-connected priorities.
Best,
Dan
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 8:34 AM Adam Wight
adam.m.wight@gmail.com
wrote:
...
+1 to Paulo's point, personally I would like to see us ease up on María
and this seemingly temporary paid role. It's not a sinecure, not an
arbitrary nepotistic position—rather, it looks like WMF would benefit.
If the people in this thread truly have the good of the organization and
the movement at heart, there are much bigger structural issues with WMF and
this is just a reminder that we have to fix these. Save your energy for
fighting actual corruption and not just the perception of it. How about we
encourage María in her advisory role to help hire an ED committed to
accountability to the communities, for example?
attachment
attachment.htm
Fæ
6:02 p.m.
Pleased to see an open meeting to discuss this being arranged by Maggie.[1]
Sorry to see that both WMF Legal and the WMF board fail to provide
practical governance advice on the consultancy and fail to address how
this is inappropriate according to the board's published policies.
It is a shame that María's full name is in this thread title, it is
the WMF system that has failed, not the individual. The WMF board has
collectively failed their colleague and it is inexcusable that the WMF
board cannot be bothered to use their established and professionally
supported governance sub-committee to review and advise on how these
"benefits" to board members and retired board members should be
handled to avoid the obvious risk of perceived conflicts of interest
and loyalty.
There can be no doubt to anyone that the contract offer must be
withdrawn or gracefully declined and the board should apologize.
Whatever the outcome of the contract was intended to be, cannot
outweigh the loss of confidence in the WMF board and the capabilities
of WMF legal this bad decision has already caused.
1. It is peculiar that "established Wikimedians" appear to be
expected to out themselves just to take part in Tuesday's Zoom call,
which seems an unnecessary barrier.
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 00:33, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold an open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also available on Meta, here.
This office hour will be on June 29 at 15:00 UTC — see
for your local time. If you can't come, there are ways to submit questions in advance (or simultaneously, if you don't want to join Zoom).
It's taken quite a bit of time to pull together the technical details today, and the team will be sharing information in other fora over the next few days, but we wanted to follow up on this thread ASAP.
I hope to see you there.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like to clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over the engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you that we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with similar consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for the role.
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead. This needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered. Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered stepping down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at the helm of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and brought this staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources Committee, and ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last executive session of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does not generally discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that the Board knew about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest policy even if that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from her trusteeship for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were raised about Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this, and because I want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant staff. However, I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta documentation and would appreciate more information on where this policy can be found so we can review it when we next update our policies, and ensure we consistently uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree we want to be consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been raised pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we do not discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums, although we do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US nonprofit on our Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and privacy, and we find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances our values of transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all consultant compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and market comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and this is in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar regions.
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
...
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Maggie Dennis
6:11 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 8:34 AM Fæ
faewik@gmail.com
wrote:
...
1. It is peculiar that "established Wikimedians" appear to be
expected to out themselves just to take part in Tuesday's Zoom call,
which seems an unnecessary barrier.
Haven't even had coffee yet, so just popping in to say - unintentional!
That line was copied from a different kind of meeting. Fixing to what it
usualy says when I do my office hour. Thanks for identifying that, Fae. :)
Maggie
...
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 00:33, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
Following up on Amanda because she mentioned that we were going to hold
an open meeting to discuss this. I just announced the details in a separate
email thread titled "Tuesday Foundation office hour." They are also
available on Meta, here.
...
This office hour will be on June 29 at 15:00 UTC — see
for your local time. If you
can't come, there are ways to submit questions in advance (or
simultaneously, if you don't want to join Zoom).
...
It's taken quite a bit of time to pull together the technical details
today, and the team will be sharing information in other fora over the next
few days, but we wanted to follow up on this thread ASAP.
...
I hope to see you there.
Best regards,
Maggie
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:51 AM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, All,
I’m Amanda Keton, the General Counsel of the Foundation, and I’d like
to clarify some of the questions and comments that have been raised over
the engagement of María as a Foundation consultant. I want to assure you
that we carefully followed our policies, compensated this in line with
similar consultants, and legitimately assessed her as the best person for
the role.
...
...
The need. Maria’s engagement comes at a time of transition for both the
Board and the Foundation executive staff. This is also a time where the
Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) unit is setting up mechanisms
to ensure that the Foundation provides seamless service to our growing
community in its areas of responsibility. As many of you know, that team
has taken on Movement Strategy due to the transition along with maintaining
their support of Board elections, the Universal Code of Conduct, and
leading our cross-departmental approach to supporting a Thriving Movement.
...
...
As a unit, CR&S undertook a needs assessment of the workload ahead.
This needs assessment revealed gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s
Movement Strategy and in supporting staff with the ongoing Board selection
process, upcoming onboarding, and supporting a smooth transition. The team
currently supporting the Board expansion is quite stretched, monitoring
multiple channels in many languages. Having another person who can step in
immediately is tremendously helpful to these efforts. Based on this, CR&S
considered the necessary skills and expertise for assistance in executing
this work. While seeking this expertise, numerous factors were considered.
Some of these factors included experience with the Board, volunteers and
management. We also considered the qualifications with respect to the
criteria and role at hand. The unique blend of circumstances at play and
the importance of moving forward strongly at this time led us to carefully
assess our needs and explore creative solutions.
...
...
The role. In developing the scope of work for this role, we determined
that María was a very strong candidate to support this critical work. With
the transition at the executive level, and at the Board level, Maria brings
long-term familiarity with the strategy process and strategy conversations
that is crucial for the Foundation and the movement. Furthermore, she has
been a big believer and a promoter of the Movement Strategy. We believe she
can help ensure continuity in that work and can also support Maggie and
others in the Foundation working to help expand the Board in service of
bringing additional expertise, representation and capacity.
...
...
Managing a potential conflict of interest. Maria first considered
stepping down months ago, but she wanted to help navigate the transition at
the helm of the Board. I followed our Conflict of Interest policy and
brought this staff idea to the Transition Committee, the Human Resources
Committee, and ultimately discussed this idea in principle in the last
executive session of the Board of Trustees -- without Maria. The Board does
not generally discuss individual contracts, but I wanted to make sure that
the Board knew about it to respect the spirit of the conflict of interest
policy even if that would be shortly mitigated by her stepping down from
her trusteeship for unrelated reasons. I appreciate the concerns that were
raised about Affiliates receiving different advice. I'm not aware of this,
and because I want to respond timely, I can't check with all the relevant
staff. However, I have not found reference to this in internal or Meta
documentation and would appreciate more information on where this policy
can be found so we can review it when we next update our policies, and
ensure we consistently uphold our policies throughout the movement. I agree
we want to be consistent, and I appreciate that this was pointed out.
...
...
Fair compensation. I understand that a lot of questions have been
raised pertaining to Maria’s remuneration. As many of you already know, we
do not discuss remuneration of staff or consultants in public forums,
although we do disclose appropriately as we are required to as a US
nonprofit on our Form 990. It can be difficult to balance transparency and
privacy, and we find it best to adhere to a general approach that balances
our values of transparency and privacy as well as possible. However, all
consultant compensation is reviewed according to our standard rates and
market comparables. María’s compensation was set by the same process, and
this is in line with how others are paid for similar work in similar
regions.
...
...
I hope this clarifies any questions and doubts that you may have.
Best,
Amanda
...
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
attachment
attachment.htm
Amanda Keton
30 Jun
30 Jun
6:08 a.m.
Hello, all.
Thank you to everyone who attended the office hour at 15:00 UTC 29 June 2021.[1] We’ll be posting the notes in the next few days, including answers to a few questions we couldn’t answer in the allotted time. As promised, I wanted to follow up with next steps.
María’s contract. Following my discussion with María after the office hour, we have mutually agreed to end the contract as of 16 July 2021. María has graciously agreed to finish and document the assignments she has already started and cover for staff on holiday until this date. She will not start any new work.
Conflict of Interest Policy. We will review, update and post an updated Conflict of Interest policy by 30 September 2021 for community review and discussion before ultimate approval by the Board. The updated policy will include a consideration of “cooling off periods.”
Affiliate Grant Agreements. We had already planned to review and update our grant agreements, and we will ensure that those updates incorporate up-to-date affiliate governance guidance. We will share updated grant agreement templates for community review and comment by 31 January 2022.
Prioritization reassessment and Additional Resources. We will reassess our plans and priorities in light of these changes in direction and commitments. Given the termination period mentioned above, we will conduct this reassessment in the second half of July, when we return from a Foundation-wide break (5-9 July 2021). It is likely we will reassign internal staff and/or seek additional staff capacity. We will post any job listings publicly as part of the hiring process.
I appreciate all of you who raised important considerations in these conversations. I continue to hope that we can learn and grow from these moments together. I deeply believe that we must unite to push against the forces that are working against our mission and that we are stronger together. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share how this happened, seek your input, and change course.
In solidarity and with gratitude,
Amanda
Amanda Keton
She/her/hers
General Counsel and Transition Team Member
Wikimedia Foundation
mail＠pavelrichter.de
1 Jul
1 Jul
2:17 p.m.
Dear Amanda,
Thank you for this quick and holistic response. I am sure that settles the matter and helps the movement to avoid future misunderstandings like these.
The real victim here is Maria, of course. She has invested a tremendous amount of time, energy and knowledge into steering the WMF Board for many, many years. She has contributed so much to our movement as a volunteer - she does not deserve this stain on her reputation. And I sincerely hope that people within the WMF have apologized to Maria for bringing her into this impossible situation.
Cheers,
Pavel
Chuck Roslof
2 Oct
2 Oct
12:18 a.m.
Hi all,
This is a brief note to follow up on our commitment to update the conflict
of interest policy.[1] I apologize that we did not meet our initial
deadline of 30 September, but the update is in progress. We are currently
finalizing the draft updated policy and figuring out the best timing for
publication. We want to make sure we have adequate staff support to respond
to feedback, and we want to minimize overlap with and disruption of other
planned discussions. Currently, it looks like we should be able to publish
the draft updated policy by the first week of November. I will let you know
when we have a set date.
Best,
Chuck
[1]
==
Charles M. Roslof
Lead Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
Pronouns: they / he
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 5:39 PM Amanda Keton
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all.
Thank you to everyone who attended the office hour at 15:00 UTC 29 June
2021.[1] We’ll be posting the notes in the next few days, including answers
to a few questions we couldn’t answer in the allotted time. As promised, I
wanted to follow up with next steps.
María’s contract. Following my discussion with María after the office
hour, we have mutually agreed to end the contract as of 16 July 2021. María
has graciously agreed to finish and document the assignments she has
already started and cover for staff on holiday until this date. She will
not start any new work.
Conflict of Interest Policy. We will review, update and post an updated
Conflict of Interest policy by 30 September 2021 for community review and
discussion before ultimate approval by the Board. The updated policy will
include a consideration of “cooling off periods.”
Affiliate Grant Agreements. We had already planned to review and update
our grant agreements, and we will ensure that those updates incorporate
up-to-date affiliate governance guidance. We will share updated grant
agreement templates for community review and comment by 31 January 2022.
Prioritization reassessment and Additional Resources. We will reassess our
plans and priorities in light of these changes in direction and
commitments. Given the termination period mentioned above, we will conduct
this reassessment in the second half of July, when we return from a
Foundation-wide break (5-9 July 2021). It is likely we will reassign
internal staff and/or seek additional staff capacity. We will post any job
listings publicly as part of the hiring process.
I appreciate all of you who raised important considerations in these
conversations. I continue to hope that we can learn and grow from these
moments together. I deeply believe that we must unite to push against the
forces that are working against our mission and that we are stronger
together. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share how this
happened, seek your input, and change course.
In solidarity and with gratitude,
Amanda
Amanda Keton
She/her/hers
General Counsel and Transition Team Member
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Jan-Bart de Vreede
24 Jun
24 Jun
8:13 p.m.
Hey
So with all due respect and sympathy for the individuals involved and me being unwilling to hurt people I feel it would be worse for me just keep quiet.
The Foundation is supposed to be an example of good Governance for our entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the past 20 years (and that is important: as our organisation and budget grows, so do our responsibilities and the critical questions we get from the world)
My personal opinion with regards to this announcement it comes down to this:
It is NOT good governance to have a current board member suddenly resign and then create a situation where that person receives compensation for a position that seems to have been created specifically for that board member (or at least was not publicly posted?).
Even simpler
It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant.
No matter whether or not this is legally or procedurally explainable…
Jan-Bart de Vreede
(Writing this as a personal opinion)
...
On 23 Jun 2021, at 22:44, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience & Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department. I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising. Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail
! I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Samuel Klein
8:56 p.m.
Jan-Bart: Spot on. It is always uplifting to see one of your measured
notes come over the wire.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
jan-bart@wikimedia.nl
writes:
...
The Foundation is supposed to be an example of good Governance for our
entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the past 20
years (and that is important: as our organisation and budget grows, so do
our responsibilities and the critical questions we get from the world)
It is NOT good governance to have a current board member suddenly resign
and then create a situation where that person receives compensation for a
position that seems to have been created specifically for that board member
(or at least was not publicly posted?).
The impact of this increases as the movement grows, and clear communication
is at a premium. How can we use this moment to model the norms we want for
the future? Any *particular* moment can feel like a special exception when
you are close to it, but the WMF's actions set a standard, translated
across time and context, more instantly and effectively than words.
...
It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board
members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant.
A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or
policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you describe specifics
that are in place now around the movement?
SJ.
attachment
attachment.htm
Chris Keating
10:43 p.m.
...
...
It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board
members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant.
A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or
policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you describe specifics
that are in place now around the movement?
It's interesting that you mention norms and policies... Wikimedia UK's
policy on this (1) for instance states
"During the period of trusteeship, and for six months after leaving the
board, no trustee may without the consent of the board accept any employed
or remunerated consultancy position with, nor may offer remunerated
consultancy services to:
- WMUK. Family members of trustees are ineligible for the same period;
- the Wikimedia Foundation;
- any organisation with which WMUK has a recent financial connection
(either as funder or as a recipient of funds or gifts in kind), where the
connection is significant enough to both parties to give rise to a
reasonable perception of a current conflict of interest."
This is rather more in-depth than the WMF's policy, at least so far as I
can see. Though not so in-depth as the previous version of the policy,
which also required seeking the approval of the UK's charity regulator.
Even so, the policy could permit this kind of situation if the Board
decided to approve the arrangement. However, no sensible Board would do so,
because of exactly the kind of reaction that you see in this thread.
Chris
(1)
attachment
attachment.htm
Christophe Henner
25 Jun
25 Jun
12:30 a.m.
Hi everyone,
I feel the asynchronous discussion prevents from a meaningful discussion to
happen.
Given the situation, I feel it would be appropriate for the board and the
general counsel, who is the executive responsible for governance (and seems
to be the person at the top of this reporting line), to answer questions
from the community so that we can get specific answers and a bettwr
understanding on these important issues.
Also, it is my feeling that this should not involve María, as it's about
the accountability of the sitting trustees and general counsel.
Can we move forward with arranging this discussion?
Thank you in advance for helping moving that topic forward :)
Le jeu. 24 juin 2021 à 7:13 PM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
a écrit :
...
...
...
It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board
members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant.
A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or
policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you describe specifics
that are in place now around the movement?
It's interesting that you mention norms and policies... Wikimedia UK's
policy on this (1) for instance states
"During the period of trusteeship, and for six months after leaving the
board, no trustee may without the consent of the board accept any employed
or remunerated consultancy position with, nor may offer remunerated
consultancy services to:
WMUK. Family members of trustees are ineligible for the same period;
the Wikimedia Foundation;
any organisation with which WMUK has a recent financial connection
(either as funder or as a recipient of funds or gifts in kind), where the
connection is significant enough to both parties to give rise to a
reasonable perception of a current conflict of interest."
This is rather more in-depth than the WMF's policy, at least so far as I
can see. Though not so in-depth as the previous version of the policy,
which also required seeking the approval of the UK's charity regulator.
Even so, the policy could permit this kind of situation if the Board
decided to approve the arrangement. However, no sensible Board would do so,
because of exactly the kind of reaction that you see in this thread.
Chris
(1)
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Philip Kopetzky
1:47 a.m.
Hi SJ!
The 12 month waiting/cooldown period is something that was implemented in
the Good Governance Kodex of Wikimedia Austria in 2014, see
with an independent committee consisting of a staff, board and community
representative deciding cases that do not fulfill the 12 months waiting
period.
Best,
Philip
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 16:28, Samuel Klein
meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Jan-Bart: Spot on. It is always uplifting to see one of your measured
notes come over the wire.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
jan-bart@wikimedia.nl
writes:
...
The Foundation is supposed to be an example of good Governance for our
entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the past 20
years (and that is important: as our organisation and budget grows, so do
our responsibilities and the critical questions we get from the world)
It is NOT good governance to have a current board member suddenly resign
and then create a situation where that person receives compensation for a
position that seems to have been created specifically for that board member
(or at least was not publicly posted?).
The impact of this increases as the movement grows, and clear
communication is at a premium. How can we use this moment to model the
norms we want for the future? Any *particular* moment can feel like a
special exception when you are close to it, but the WMF's actions set a
standard, translated across time and context, more instantly and
effectively than words.
...
It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board
members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant.
A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or
policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you describe specifics
that are in place now around the movement?
SJ.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Samuel Klein
26 Jun
26 Jun
1:28 a.m.
¹ OK, the existence of the Good Governance Kodex, and its Good Governance
Gremium
, may be the
best thing I learned all day. Thank you, WMAT!
Some precedents:
~ As Florence noted, in 2007, Erik made a similar transition. (A bit
contentious; there was a long internal-l thread).
~ In 2013, Ting stepped down from the Board to apply to the ED search; and
addressed concerns at the time. (Discussion on this list
Since then we've thought more intently about this sort of transition across
the movement, and shared many excellent learning patterns
,¹ but
I haven't seen a resulting global rule of thumb honoring that work. This
feels like a good moment to develop such a lightweight overview. E.g.,
"orgs over size X should review this list of [[common patterns]], and
consider implementing a version of each [links to global + regional
WM-wide examples]".
SJ
--
topnoting >> topposting
*the community that norms together, warms together*, &c.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Philip Kopetzky
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Hi SJ!
The 12 month waiting/cooldown period is something that was implemented in
the Good Governance Kodex of Wikimedia Austria in 2014, see
with an independent committee consisting of a staff, board and community
representative deciding cases that do not fulfill the 12 months waiting
period.
Best,
Philip
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 16:28, Samuel Klein
meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Jan-Bart: Spot on. It is always uplifting to see one of your measured
notes come over the wire.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
jan-bart@wikimedia.nl
writes:
...
The Foundation is supposed to be an example of good Governance for our
entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the past 20
years (and that is important: as our organisation and budget grows, so do
our responsibilities and the critical questions we get from the world)
It is NOT good governance to have a current board member suddenly resign
and then create a situation where that person receives compensation for a
position that seems to have been created specifically for that board member
(or at least was not publicly posted?).
The impact of this increases as the movement grows, and clear
communication is at a premium. How can we use this moment to model the
norms we want for the future? Any *particular* moment can feel like a
special exception when you are close to it, but the WMF's actions set a
standard, translated across time and context, more instantly and
effectively than words.
...
It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board
members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant.
A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or
policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you describe specifics
that are in place now around the movement?
SJ.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
attachment
attachment.htm
Kunal Mehta
1:50 a.m.
Hi,
On 6/25/21 12:58 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
...
Some precedents:
~ As Florence noted, in 2007, Erik made a similar transition. (A bit
contentious; there was a long internal-l thread).
And on Foundation-l
...
~ In 2013, Ting stepped down from the Board to apply to the ED search;
and addressed concerns at the time. (Discussion on this list
Try this link
Though I couldn't find any replies to Ting on Wikimedia-l, maybe the
real discussion happened elsewhere.
-- Legoktm
P.S.: With Mailman3, the Wikimedia-l archives are now fully searchable
through the web UI. You can even search across all lists at once.
attachment
attachment.htm
Erik Moeller
27 Jun
27 Jun
2:15 a.m.
I strongly agree that whatever standards of governance the movement
develops should be adhered to consistently. I think it's entirely
understandable if folks are angry if WMF holds affiliates to a
different standard than itself. A symmetrical waiting period for Board
members seeking paid positions for staff members seeking trusteeship
seems like a reasonable governance standard to apply across the board.
The WMF Board did discuss waiting periods previously, both when I was
a member [1] (I was in support of a symmetrical 6 month waiting
period) and after [2]. WMF ultimately did not implement such a policy,
nor did it adhere to one informally when it hired me after I left the
Board in late 2007. (I've had no involvement with the org since 2015,
nor have I sought it.)
I don't know if the implementation of a waiting period was discussed
again by the Board in subsequent years. It's not surprising to me if
the organization is not adhering to it now, since it appears to still
lack such a policy in 2021.
At least in my understanding, this thread conflates a good practice
(waiting periods) with violations of COI policies. As I understand it,
WMF adhered to its existing COI policy through the usual measures
(recusal & resignation from the Board).
The primary purpose of COI policies is to prevent self-dealing.
Typical scenarios described in COI guidelines written from a US
perspective like [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] focus on Board members hiring
relatives, or securing contracts for their own business. They
generally do not _prohibit_ even such transactions outright but
describe how they must be managed. WMUK's 2012 governance review was,
in part, triggered by a trustee's Wikimedia-related consulting
activities while on the Board.
Waiting periods (symmetrical or in one direction) are sometimes
explicitly included in COI policies, but as far as I can tell, at
least for US 501(c)(3)s, they are far from common, and I did not find
them in COI guidelines for organizations in our space that are
publicly available (Mozilla, OSI, Software Freedom Conservancy, etc.).
They may be more common in specific sectors (e.g., academia) and are
certainly widely used in revolving door provisions in the context of
political lobbying. IANAL (nor are most of the people commenting
here), and corrections and insights and citations from lawyers or
nonprofit governance experts would certainly be helpful.
I will note that, as Chris pointed out, even WMUK's current policies
would permit a transaction like the one we're discussing if approved
by the Board ("no trustee may _without the consent of the board_"
[8]), and Wikimedia Austria's Good Governance Kodex would permit it if
approved by the Gremium ("bedarf diese Anstellung der ausdrücklichen
Genehmigung durch das Good-Governance-Gremium" [9]).
If such transactions are sometimes viewed as permissible, as part of
harmonizing governance standards, it would be good to enumerate
examples: would this transaction qualify? If the emerging consensus is
to enforce waiting periods at all times, clauses which permit Boards
to overrule them should perhaps be revised as part of harmonization
efforts.
Because this is not nearly as bright a line as some commenters are
suggesting, at least in my understanding, there is no compelling
argument for reversing this decision if it is otherwise in the best
interests of the organization. But there is certainly a strong
practical and ethical argument for harmonizing policies and practices
(and for issuing an apology if inconsistent standards have been
applied).
Warmly,
Erik
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
aketon＠wikimedia.org
2:53 a.m.
Hello all,
While this office hour will be attended by more than me, I want to be very clear what my intentions are, because I understand that some people may be concerned that I plan to show up to simply justify our decision. That’s not my goal at all. My intentions are to share perspectives, listen, and learn to inform the specific actions to take. Only after that will I make a decision about how best to proceed, in conversation and partnership with María, the other members of the Transition Team, and the Board. I am committed to making well-informed decisions that support the movement and my responsibility to it as quickly as possible.
It is obvious that despite our best intentions, the Board and Transition Team did not have all the relevant facts and circumstances in mind when this decision was made. This is a separate issue from whether or not a COI exists, which I plan for us to discuss together on Tuesday. I will take tangible steps to address these issues now that they have been brought to our attention. I want to make sure we do that with proper reflection, to avoid worsening those mistakes with poorly thought-out solutions. I would like to partner to repair this together, and grow stronger as a result.
I look forward to seeing many of you tomorrow for Movement Strategy conversations and then again to discuss these and other transition matters on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Amanda
Gerard Meijssen
2:48 p.m.
Hoi,
First, I am a candidate for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. I have
taken time to see what people say, not react immediately.
For María to become a consultant, I am of two minds. She is probably best
placed to support the implementation of the strategy as defined. With both
the director and the chair of the board left in quick succession this will
help make the roadmap practical. On the other hand, I do agree with Jan
Bart and in addition it can be considered "ruling from the grave". Yes, the
strategy is to be implemented but we have to be aware of our missing public.
This is the reason for my candidature; we have not developed other
languages and we foster the false assumption that it is only communities
that build our projects. The functionality that we have may be wonderfully
localised but it is the software itself that does not truly support other
languages. This is often because functionality is based on the demands of
the biggest Wikipedias. It is easy to define user stories and show how a
difference can be made. Everytime when this subject was broached,
promises were made for the future. The numbers show that this bias is
entrenched; compare the world population with the population that speaks
English and it should be obvious that we have a gap that needs to be
narrowed. Yes, there are easy and obvious things we can cheaply do. I want
us to put a genuine effort, find a potential public, serve a new public and
in this way build our communities.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 23:23,
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello all,
While this office hour will be attended by more than me, I want to be very
clear what my intentions are, because I understand that some people may be
concerned that I plan to show up to simply justify our decision. That’s not
my goal at all. My intentions are to share perspectives, listen, and learn
to inform the specific actions to take. Only after that will I make a
decision about how best to proceed, in conversation and partnership with
María, the other members of the Transition Team, and the Board. I am
committed to making well-informed decisions that support the movement and
my responsibility to it as quickly as possible.
It is obvious that despite our best intentions, the Board and Transition
Team did not have all the relevant facts and circumstances in mind when
this decision was made. This is a separate issue from whether or not a COI
exists, which I plan for us to discuss together on Tuesday. I will take
tangible steps to address these issues now that they have been brought to
our attention. I want to make sure we do that with proper reflection, to
avoid worsening those mistakes with poorly thought-out solutions. I would
like to partner to repair this together, and grow stronger as a result.
I look forward to seeing many of you tomorrow for Movement Strategy
conversations and then again to discuss these and other transition matters
on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Maggie Dennis
11:11 p.m.
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with
whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about
all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings
worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of
concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address
the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and support
whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety behavioral
investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect the
privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even
among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under
review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have
signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently
have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on
appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I want
to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever attempted
to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action (including
warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the Meta page,
which includes a list of the individuals
.) I know that my
saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m
deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is
unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any
Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases
should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not
weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation
itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust &
Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first
Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which
behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust &
Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a
request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have seen
bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members or
those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action that
might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate
criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are
very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile
with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go
on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s
hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those
problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that
way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But there
are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board
members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection,
too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation has
only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable for
me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one of
the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a
connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the case.
The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a year apart)
before we took office action instead of the more common one. (Fram has
acknowledged receiving warnings
otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is appropriate
or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it disturbs me to
know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in regards to a
Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on leave when the
final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in the months and
years that preceded it and was not unaware of the discussions surrounding
that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself as a person if I didn’t
push back on that misimpression of her behavior in that case and explain
that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other questions
about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as always) I
am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with people and
will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
attachment
attachment.htm
Katherine Maher
28 Jun
28 Jun
12:49 a.m.
Hi folks,
Leaving aside everything else for a minute, I want to reply to Maggie’s
statement regarding the T&S case here. As someone with direct and specific
knowledge of the issue, I feel responsibility to affirm Maggie’s version of
events.
Although we provided notice to the board that we were considering a
difficult T&S case regarding a well known admin on English Wikipedia, we
did not consult with the board on the case. When we made the determination,
following two warnings, to take action regarding the user, it was at the
recommendation of staff following an investigation that followed all
standard operating practices. The Board was not notified in advance of our
decision to move to action; something that was in line with existing
policies and IMHO, in line with an important distinction between governance
and operations, but also arguably may have contributed to some of the mess
that we’re all familiar with.
I have taken responsibility in various fora for this decision, and accepted
the subsequent criticisms, many of them legitimate, by community members. I
continue to bear that responsibility, and it is precisely because it was my
responsibility that I want to reiterate that there was no COI of María in
any capacity.
While I would handle that case somewhat differently were we to revisit it,
that is besides the point.
Whatever conversation the community wishes to have with Foundation
leadership about governance and this recent decision is up to the
community. However, I would encourage to avoid conflating these issues, as
there is no basis for the insinuation or accusation, and unnecessarily
muddies the waters for valid concerns.
Cheers,
Katherine
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 13:42 Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with
whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about
all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings
worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of
concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address
the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and support
whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety behavioral
investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect the
privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even
among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under
review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have
signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently
have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on
appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I want
to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever attempted
to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action (including
warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the Meta
page, which includes a list of the individuals
.) I know that my
saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m
deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is
unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any
Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases
should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not
weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation
itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust &
Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first
Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which
behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust &
Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a
request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have seen
bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members or
those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action that
might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate
criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are
very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile
with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go
on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s
hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those
problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that
way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But
there are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board
members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection,
too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation has
only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable for
me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one of
the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a
connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the case.
The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a year
apart) before we took office action instead of the more common one. (Fram has
acknowledged receiving warnings
otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is
appropriate or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it
disturbs me to know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in
regards to a Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on
leave when the final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in
the months and years that preceded it and was not unaware of the
discussions surrounding that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself
as a person if I didn’t push back on that misimpression of her behavior in
that case and explain that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the
other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other questions
about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as always) I
am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with people and
will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
*Katherine R. Maher*
katherine.maher@gmail.com
@krmaher
US: +1 203 858 7316
attachment
attachment.htm
Christophe Henner
1:50 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
I am just forking this thread so the title reflects the needed discussion
and we avoid derailling again to non directly / personal topics.
Le dim. 27 juin 2021 à 9:55 PM, Katherine Maher
katherine.maher@gmail.com
a écrit :
...
Hi folks,
Leaving aside everything else for a minute, I want to reply to Maggie’s
statement regarding the T&S case here. As someone with direct and specific
knowledge of the issue, I feel responsibility to affirm Maggie’s version of
events.
Although we provided notice to the board that we were considering a
difficult T&S case regarding a well known admin on English Wikipedia, we
did not consult with the board on the case. When we made the determination,
following two warnings, to take action regarding the user, it was at the
recommendation of staff following an investigation that followed all
standard operating practices. The Board was not notified in advance of our
decision to move to action; something that was in line with existing
policies and IMHO, in line with an important distinction between governance
and operations, but also arguably may have contributed to some of the mess
that we’re all familiar with.
I have taken responsibility in various fora for this decision, and
accepted the subsequent criticisms, many of them legitimate, by community
members. I continue to bear that responsibility, and it is precisely
because it was my responsibility that I want to reiterate that there was no
COI of María in any capacity.
While I would handle that case somewhat differently were we to revisit it,
that is besides the point.
Whatever conversation the community wishes to have with Foundation
leadership about governance and this recent decision is up to the
community. However, I would encourage to avoid conflating these issues, as
there is no basis for the insinuation or accusation, and unnecessarily
muddies the waters for valid concerns.
Cheers,
Katherine
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 13:42 Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with
whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about
all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings
worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of
concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address
the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and
support whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety
behavioral investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect
the privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even
among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under
review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have
signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently
have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on
appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I
want to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever
attempted to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action
(including warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the Meta
page, which includes a list of the individuals
.) I know that my
saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m
deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is
unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any
Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases
should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not
weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation
itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust
& Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first
Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which
behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust &
Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a
request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have
seen bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members
or those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action
that might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate
criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are
very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile
with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go
on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s
hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those
problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that
way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But
there are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board
members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection,
too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation
has only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable
for me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one
of the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a
connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the
case. The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a
year apart) before we took office action instead of the more common one.
(Fram has acknowledged receiving warnings
otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is
appropriate or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it
disturbs me to know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in
regards to a Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on
leave when the final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in
the months and years that preceded it and was not unaware of the
discussions surrounding that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself
as a person if I didn’t push back on that misimpression of her behavior in
that case and explain that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the
other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other
questions about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as
always) I am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with
people and will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
*Katherine R. Maher*
katherine.maher@gmail.com
@krmaher
US: +1 203 858 7316
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Jan-Bart de Vreede
30 Jun
30 Jun
1:19 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
Hi,
I want to take this opportunity to thank all Foundation staff involved in the office hour that was organised today on this topic.
Thank you for being transparent and open in what was a difficult conversation for everyone involved. Like everyone I wish that there was an easy solution, but there doesn’t seem to be one.
But thank you for trusting us by showing vulnerability and explaining the reasoning that led to this and some of the thinking going forward...
Regards
Jan-Bart de Vreede
PS: Also thank you to all those that attended or wrote on this topic and expressed their (lack of) concerns. It is only through these discussions that we an grow as a movement and rebuild trust.
...
On 27 Jun 2021, at 22:20, Christophe Henner
christophe.henner@gmail.com
wrote:
I am just forking this thread so the title reflects the needed discussion and we avoid derailling again to non directly / personal topics.
Le dim. 27 juin 2021 à 9:55 PM, Katherine Maher
> a écrit :
Hi folks,
Leaving aside everything else for a minute, I want to reply to Maggie’s statement regarding the T&S case here. As someone with direct and specific knowledge of the issue, I feel responsibility to affirm Maggie’s version of events.
Although we provided notice to the board that we were considering a difficult T&S case regarding a well known admin on English Wikipedia, we did not consult with the board on the case. When we made the determination, following two warnings, to take action regarding the user, it was at the recommendation of staff following an investigation that followed all standard operating practices. The Board was not notified in advance of our decision to move to action; something that was in line with existing policies and IMHO, in line with an important distinction between governance and operations, but also arguably may have contributed to some of the mess that we’re all familiar with.
I have taken responsibility in various fora for this decision, and accepted the subsequent criticisms, many of them legitimate, by community members. I continue to bear that responsibility, and it is precisely because it was my responsibility that I want to reiterate that there was no COI of María in any capacity.
While I would handle that case somewhat differently were we to revisit it, that is besides the point.
Whatever conversation the community wishes to have with Foundation leadership about governance and this recent decision is up to the community. However, I would encourage to avoid conflating these issues, as there is no basis for the insinuation or accusation, and unnecessarily muddies the waters for valid concerns.
Cheers,
Katherine
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 13:42 Maggie Dennis
> wrote:
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and support whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety behavioral investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect the privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I want to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever attempted to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action (including warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the Meta page, which includes a list of the individuals
.) I know that my saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust & Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust & Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have seen bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members or those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action that might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But there are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection, too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation has only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable for me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one of the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the case. The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a year apart) before we took office action instead of the more common one. (Fram has acknowledged receiving warnings
, otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is appropriate or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it disturbs me to know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in regards to a Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on leave when the final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in the months and years that preceded it and was not unaware of the discussions surrounding that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself as a person if I didn’t push back on that misimpression of her behavior in that case and explain that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other questions about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as always) I am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with people and will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Katherine R. Maher
katherine.maher@gmail.com
mailto:katherine.maher@gmail.com
@krmaher
US: +1 203 858 7316
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Chris Keating
1:28 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
+1 to this - thank you to the senior staff who led the call, as well as the
team that organised it at short notice, and to the Board members who
attended.
I would like to echo Jan-Bart's sentiments. Mistakes will always be made
where human judgement is involved, but it seems that this one is being
remedied and learned from both quickly and openly.
Thanks,
Chris
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede
jan-bart@wikimedia.nl
wrote:
...
Hi,
I want to take this opportunity to thank all Foundation staff involved in
the office hour that was organised today on this topic.
Thank you for being transparent and open in what was a difficult
conversation for everyone involved. Like everyone I wish that there was an
easy solution, but there doesn’t seem to be one.
But thank you for trusting us by showing vulnerability and explaining the
reasoning that led to this and some of the thinking going forward...
Regards
Jan-Bart de Vreede
PS: Also thank you to all those that attended or wrote on this topic and
expressed their (lack of) concerns. It is only through these discussions
that we an grow as a movement and rebuild trust.
On 27 Jun 2021, at 22:20, Christophe Henner
christophe.henner@gmail.com
wrote:
I am just forking this thread so the title reflects the needed discussion
and we avoid derailling again to non directly / personal topics.
Le dim. 27 juin 2021 à 9:55 PM, Katherine Maher
katherine.maher@gmail.com
a écrit :
...
Hi folks,
Leaving aside everything else for a minute, I want to reply to Maggie’s
statement regarding the T&S case here. As someone with direct and specific
knowledge of the issue, I feel responsibility to affirm Maggie’s version of
events.
Although we provided notice to the board that we were considering a
difficult T&S case regarding a well known admin on English Wikipedia, we
did not consult with the board on the case. When we made the determination,
following two warnings, to take action regarding the user, it was at the
recommendation of staff following an investigation that followed all
standard operating practices. The Board was not notified in advance of our
decision to move to action; something that was in line with existing
policies and IMHO, in line with an important distinction between governance
and operations, but also arguably may have contributed to some of the mess
that we’re all familiar with.
I have taken responsibility in various fora for this decision, and
accepted the subsequent criticisms, many of them legitimate, by community
members. I continue to bear that responsibility, and it is precisely
because it was my responsibility that I want to reiterate that there was no
COI of María in any capacity.
While I would handle that case somewhat differently were we to revisit
it, that is besides the point.
Whatever conversation the community wishes to have with Foundation
leadership about governance and this recent decision is up to the
community. However, I would encourage to avoid conflating these issues, as
there is no basis for the insinuation or accusation, and unnecessarily
muddies the waters for valid concerns.
Cheers,
Katherine
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 13:42 Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with
whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about
all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings
worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of
concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address
the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and
support whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety
behavioral investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect
the privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even
among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under
review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have
signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently
have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on
appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I
want to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever
attempted to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action
(including warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the Meta
page, which includes a list of the individuals
.) I know that
my saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m
deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is
unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any
Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases
should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not
weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation
itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust
& Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first
Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which
behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust &
Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a
request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have
seen bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members
or those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action
that might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate
criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are
very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile
with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go
on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s
hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those
problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that
way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But
there are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board
members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection,
too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation
has only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable
for me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one
of the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a
connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the
case. The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a
year apart) before we took office action instead of the more common one.
(Fram has acknowledged receiving warnings
otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is
appropriate or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it
disturbs me to know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in
regards to a Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on
leave when the final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in
the months and years that preceded it and was not unaware of the
discussions surrounding that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself
as a person if I didn’t push back on that misimpression of her behavior in
that case and explain that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the
other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other
questions about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as
always) I am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with
people and will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
*Katherine R. Maher*
katherine.maher@gmail.com
@krmaher
US: +1 203 858 7316
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Andy Mabbett
2:05 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 20:58, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Mistakes will always be made where human judgement is involved, but it seems
that this one is being remedied and learned from both quickly and openly.
For those of us not on the call; how so?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Chris Keating
2:15 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
I'm sure a statement will be forthcoming, but in short (and these are my
notes and may not accurately reflect others' words in detail)
- the WMF are deciding today whether to revoke or postpone Maria's
appointment, with a strong hint they will do one or another
- the WMF will also review its own conflict of interest policy in line with
global good practices, with some form of community consultation on this
- the WMF will commit to holding itself to the same governance standards as
it expects of grantees, e.g. affiliates
Chris
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021, 21:36 Andy Mabbett,
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 20:58, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Mistakes will always be made where human judgement is involved, but it
seems
...
that this one is being remedied and learned from both quickly and openly.
For those of us not on the call; how so?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Shani Evenstein
2:19 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
To those who could not make it --
And yes. A formal decision will follow up in the coming days (as soon as
possible).
Shani.
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
Acting Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 23:46, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
I'm sure a statement will be forthcoming, but in short (and these are my
notes and may not accurately reflect others' words in detail)
the WMF are deciding today whether to revoke or postpone Maria's
appointment, with a strong hint they will do one or another
the WMF will also review its own conflict of interest policy in line
with global good practices, with some form of community consultation on this
the WMF will commit to holding itself to the same governance standards
as it expects of grantees, e.g. affiliates
Chris
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021, 21:36 Andy Mabbett,
andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 20:58, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Mistakes will always be made where human judgement is involved, but it
seems
...
that this one is being remedied and learned from both quickly and
openly.
For those of us not on the call; how so?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
2:39 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
Dear all,
I have been reading and closely following this and many other similar topics for a long time. I am sorry to say that for me, organising a concept like an "Office Hour" and doing so via Youtube for a concern of these dimensions (that affects the whole reputation of the movement), is not "remedied and learned from both quickly and openly". But only another proof of the shallowness and estrangement from the WMF towards the editors' communities. It will always be more complex to tackle common problems -and they will always become less transparent- if they are streamed in external services, attached in endlessly long PDFs, resolved in in-person small conferences, or hidden via email to whatever WMF staff email address, rather than where they really should be publicly adressed.
I am not surprised that the ethical values that used to be govern the Wikimedia Movement are seeing a drift if the usage of the wiki (i.e. Meta-wiki, notifications in the Village Pumps, etc.), our basic bastion for internal audit and debates, is also getting lost and externalised. How can I justify and convince someone that we are basically an horizontal movement of volunteers, if such a huge conflict of interest affecting all credibility is being broadcasted on Youtube almost via appointment, like if the WMF was a tech customer service? This is applicable to other endless relevant situations experienced before, that are not being tackled because Wikimedians (people who edit Wikimedia projecs in wikis) cannot access wiki spaces in which these hot topics are properly developed and announced.
Couldn't avoid sharing these thoughts publicly here, sorry if someone may consider it a side reflection.
Xavier Dengra
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
El dimarts, 29 de juny 2021 a les 9:58 PM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
va escriure:
...
+1 to this - thank you to the senior staff who led the call, as well as the team that organised it at short notice, and to the Board members who attended.
I would like to echo Jan-Bart's sentiments. Mistakes will always be made where human judgement is involved, but it seems that this one is being remedied and learned from both quickly and openly.
Thanks,
Chris
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede
jan-bart@wikimedia.nl
wrote:
...
Hi,
I want to take this opportunity to thank all Foundation staff involved in the office hour that was organised today on this topic.
Thank you for being transparent and open in what was a difficult conversation for everyone involved. Like everyone I wish that there was an easy solution, but there doesn’t seem to be one.
But thank you for trusting us by showing vulnerability and explaining the reasoning that led to this and some of the thinking going forward...
Regards
Jan-Bart de Vreede
PS: Also thank you to all those that attended or wrote on this topic and expressed their (lack of) concerns. It is only through these discussions that we an grow as a movement and rebuild trust.
...
On 27 Jun 2021, at 22:20, Christophe Henner
christophe.henner@gmail.com
wrote:
I am just forking this thread so the title reflects the needed discussion and we avoid derailling again to non directly / personal topics.
Le dim. 27 juin 2021 à 9:55 PM, Katherine Maher
katherine.maher@gmail.com
a écrit :
...
Hi folks,
Leaving aside everything else for a minute, I want to reply to Maggie’s statement regarding the T&S case here. As someone with direct and specific knowledge of the issue, I feel responsibility to affirm Maggie’s version of events.
Although we provided notice to the board that we were considering a difficult T&S case regarding a well known admin on English Wikipedia, we did not consult with the board on the case. When we made the determination, following two warnings, to take action regarding the user, it was at the recommendation of staff following an investigation that followed all standard operating practices. The Board was not notified in advance of our decision to move to action; something that was in line with existing policies and IMHO, in line with an important distinction between governance and operations, but also arguably may have contributed to some of the mess that we’re all familiar with.
I have taken responsibility in various fora for this decision, and accepted the subsequent criticisms, many of them legitimate, by community members. I continue to bear that responsibility, and it is precisely because it was my responsibility that I want to reiterate that there was no COI of María in any capacity.
While I would handle that case somewhat differently were we to revisit it, that is besides the point.
Whatever conversation the community wishes to have with Foundation leadership about governance and this recent decision is up to the community. However, I would encourage to avoid conflating these issues, as there is no basis for the insinuation or accusation, and unnecessarily muddies the waters for valid concerns.
Cheers,
Katherine
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 13:42 Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and support whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety behavioral investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect the privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I want to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever attempted to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action (including warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the [Meta page, which includes a list of the individuals](
).) I know that my saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust & Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust & Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have seen bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members or those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action that might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But there are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection, too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation has only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable for me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one of the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the case. The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a year apart) before we took office action instead of the more common one. (Fram [has acknowledged receiving warnings](
), otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is appropriate or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it disturbs me to know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in regards to a Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on leave when the final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in the months and years that preceded it and was not unaware of the discussions surrounding that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself as a person if I didn’t push back on that misimpression of her behavior in that case and explain that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other questions about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as always) I am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with people and will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Katherine R. Maher
katherine.maher@gmail.com
[@krmaher](
US: +1 203 858 7316
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
geni
4:51 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 23:39, F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Dear all,
I have been reading and closely following this and many other similar topics for a long time. I am sorry to say that for me, organising a concept like an "Office Hour" and doing so via Youtube for a concern of these dimensions (that affects the whole reputation of the movement), is not "remedied and learned from both quickly and openly". B
Hmm for those who don't have 1:03 to burn the highlights were:
Consulted 30 people. Wasn't aware of affiliate standards. Still not
decided what to do. Should be deciding what to do in the next few
days.
The main defence for it not being a COI was that the budget presented
to the board isn't detailed enough for the board to be aware that the
position would exist.
In terms of the offered contract renumaration was based on market
comprability and simular WMF contacts. Contract is 0-40 hours which
could mean anything.
Plan to consult an aditional lawyer in future but given that 30 people
were already consulted I'm not sure how that is meant to help.
Less related is that there is a new budget format coming up and
they've got as far as CEO candidates
--
geni
effe iets anders
11:36 a.m.
New subject: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff
Just had the opportunity to take a quick listen, and I echo the
appreciation. Amanda, thank you for your great tone and attitude in this.
It is more than I dared to hope for at this short timeframe. I realize this
is a team effort, but it would have been easy for you to dump this on
someone else's plate - so extra appreciate this.
Lodewijk
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 4:22 PM geni
geniice@gmail.com
wrote:
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 23:39, F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Dear all,
I have been reading and closely following this and many other similar
topics for a long time. I am sorry to say that for me, organising a concept
like an "Office Hour" and doing so via Youtube for a concern of these
dimensions (that affects the whole reputation of the movement), is not
"remedied and learned from both quickly and openly". B
Hmm for those who don't have 1:03 to burn the highlights were:
Consulted 30 people. Wasn't aware of affiliate standards. Still not
decided what to do. Should be deciding what to do in the next few
days.
The main defence for it not being a COI was that the budget presented
to the board isn't detailed enough for the board to be aware that the
position would exist.
In terms of the offered contract renumaration was based on market
comprability and simular WMF contacts. Contract is 0-40 hours which
could mean anything.
Plan to consult an aditional lawyer in future but given that 30 people
were already consulted I'm not sure how that is meant to help.
Less related is that there is a new budget format coming up and
they've got as far as CEO candidates
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Jan-Bart de Vreede
28 Jun
28 Jun
1:08 a.m.
Dear Maggie (& everyone)
Thank you for this email. I really feel that you should not have had to write this. I feel that the personal reference in an earlier mail (on this thread) to Maria and her partner was inappropriate and detracted from the discussion. But thank you for taking the opportunity to share the facts as you know them.
Again: this is hard… we as a movement are in a tough spot with regards to next steps. There are individuals involved (volunteers and staff) whom I not only respect but also sympathise with. And whatever our next steps are people have been hurt and could be damaged even more.
I have stated my opinion… and the Dutch have a saying which sums this up nicely: “beter ten halve gekeerd dan ten hele gedwaald” which roughly translated to “better to turn back halfway than having completed the journey ending up being lost"
But whatever the outcome, let us try to limit the personal attacks and minimise the damage to everyone involved.
Regards
Jan-Bart de Vreede
(Again: my personal opinion)
...
On 27 Jun 2021, at 19:41, Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and support whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety behavioral investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect the privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I want to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever attempted to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action (including warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the Meta page, which includes a list of the individuals
.) I know that my saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust & Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust & Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have seen bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members or those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action that might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But there are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection, too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation has only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable for me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one of the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the case. The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a year apart) before we took office action instead of the more common one. (Fram has acknowledged receiving warnings
, otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is appropriate or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it disturbs me to know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in regards to a Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on leave when the final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in the months and years that preceded it and was not unaware of the discussions surrounding that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself as a person if I didn’t push back on that misimpression of her behavior in that case and explain that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other questions about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as always) I am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with people and will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Maor Malul
29 Jun
29 Jun
9:45 p.m.
Hi Amanda,
...
It is obvious that despite our best intentions, the Board and Transition
Team did not have all the relevant facts and circumstances in mind when
this decision was made.
I'm trying hard to understand how the Board and Transition team failed to
realize the WMF expects standards of transparency, ethics, and governance
from affiliates that the WMF itself is not able to meet, and worse, than
hiring María as a consultant with this level of transparency wouldn't be
considered unethical. I certainly understand the need, and value
tremendously María's advice, but t's not the first time incidents like this
happen, and the reply we always receive is "going forward, we'll do this
better" or something along those lines.
Many volunteers around the globe have worked very hard for years to meet
the standards the WMF expects from us. This feels like a slap on the face.
Or, another.
...
This is a separate issue from whether or not a COI exists, which I plan
for us to discuss together on Tuesday. I will take tangible steps to
address these issues now that they have been brought to our attention. I
want to make sure we do that with proper reflection, to avoid worsening
those mistakes with poorly thought-out solutions. I would like to partner
to repair this together, and grow stronger as a result.
I look forward to seeing many of you tomorrow for Movement Strategy
conversations and then again to discuss these and other transition matters
on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
*"Jülüjain wane mmakat ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."*
Maor Malul
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il
Member, Wiki Cemeteries User Group
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
10:33 p.m.
Hi all,
An important item of information that transpired during the Office Hour
just now is that the envisaged contract is for consultancy services of up
to 40 hours per week.
(The event also featured, it must be said, a very photogenic cat.)
Andreas
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 5:16 PM Maor Malul
maor.malul.x@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Hi Amanda,
...
It is obvious that despite our best intentions, the Board and Transition
Team did not have all the relevant facts and circumstances in mind when
this decision was made.
I'm trying hard to understand how the Board and Transition team failed to
realize the WMF expects standards of transparency, ethics, and governance
from affiliates that the WMF itself is not able to meet, and worse, than
hiring María as a consultant with this level of transparency wouldn't be
considered unethical. I certainly understand the need, and value
tremendously María's advice, but t's not the first time incidents like this
happen, and the reply we always receive is "going forward, we'll do this
better" or something along those lines.
Many volunteers around the globe have worked very hard for years to meet
the standards the WMF expects from us. This feels like a slap on the face.
Or, another.
...
This is a separate issue from whether or not a COI exists, which I plan
for us to discuss together on Tuesday. I will take tangible steps to
address these issues now that they have been brought to our attention. I
want to make sure we do that with proper reflection, to avoid worsening
those mistakes with poorly thought-out solutions. I would like to partner
to repair this together, and grow stronger as a result.
I look forward to seeing many of you tomorrow for Movement Strategy
conversations and then again to discuss these and other transition matters
on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
*"Jülüjain wane mmakat ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."*
Maor Malul
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il
Member, Wiki Cemeteries User Group
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Bence Damokos
30 Jun
30 Jun
1:29 a.m.
Thank you for sharing the link to the recording, unfortunately I could not
follow it live.
I am reassured by the open approach and speed taken to transparently
address the issue and hope that the commitments promised will be followed
through. With the high turnover at the WMF and many leadership positions
still to be filled, this was an encouraging signal.
I did not want to come in earlier, as I believe the perception and what is
expected of a major and mature organisation was well described by others.
I only want to draw attention to one point in the interest of our growing
or future affiliates in that the examples brought forward from affiliate
policies enforced by the WMF all concerned mature organisations with an
established separation of staff and board roles (can't be sure, but I don't
believe this was a policy systematically promoted to affiliates). Some
smaller affiliates might find themselves in the position where a given
board member might be putting in the 30 hours a week as a volunteer, and
when it comes to hiring the first employee, the choice is between giving
this "unicorn" board member a chance (provided the position is advertised,
s/he is properly recused and qualified) or getting an outsider on-boarded
probably by the same board member who was already working 30 hours a week
for free and who might be asked to continue to do so.
(There's already a lot on this topic on Meta which is a bit off topic in
this thread, and just my short hypothetical example here raises a myriad
assumptions or side discussions on the right approach to take -- the point
is that our movement is more varied than has been represented in the few
posts on the mailing list here and any future harmonisation in this area
should keep this diversity and Dariusz' perspective at the end of the
recording
in mind in our efforts to
setting up a movement wide minimum standard on the experience of this
oversight at our supposedly most mature organisation.)
Best regards,
Bence
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 19:06, Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Hi all,
An important item of information that transpired during the Office Hour
just now is that the envisaged contract is for consultancy services of up
to 40 hours per week.
(The event also featured, it must be said, a very photogenic cat.)
Andreas
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 5:16 PM Maor Malul
maor.malul.x@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Hi Amanda,
...
It is obvious that despite our best intentions, the Board and Transition
Team did not have all the relevant facts and circumstances in mind when
this decision was made.
I'm trying hard to understand how the Board and Transition team failed to
realize the WMF expects standards of transparency, ethics, and governance
from affiliates that the WMF itself is not able to meet, and worse, than
hiring María as a consultant with this level of transparency wouldn't be
considered unethical. I certainly understand the need, and value
tremendously María's advice, but t's not the first time incidents like this
happen, and the reply we always receive is "going forward, we'll do this
better" or something along those lines.
Many volunteers around the globe have worked very hard for years to meet
the standards the WMF expects from us. This feels like a slap on the face.
Or, another.
...
This is a separate issue from whether or not a COI exists, which I plan
for us to discuss together on Tuesday. I will take tangible steps to
address these issues now that they have been brought to our attention. I
want to make sure we do that with proper reflection, to avoid worsening
those mistakes with poorly thought-out solutions. I would like to partner
to repair this together, and grow stronger as a result.
I look forward to seeing many of you tomorrow for Movement Strategy
conversations and then again to discuss these and other transition matters
on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
*"Jülüjain wane mmakat ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."*
Maor Malul
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il
Member, Wiki Cemeteries User Group
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Dan Szymborski
27 Jun
27 Jun
3 a.m.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Erik Moeller
eloquence@gmail.com
wrote:
At least in my understanding, this thread conflates a good practice
...
(waiting periods) with violations of COI policies. As I understand it,
WMF adhered to its existing COI policy through the usual measures
(recusal & resignation from the Board).
The primary purpose of COI policies is to prevent self-dealing.
Typical scenarios described in COI guidelines written from a US
perspective like [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] focus on Board members hiring
relatives, or securing contracts for their own business. They
generally do not _prohibit_ even such transactions outright but
describe how they must be managed. WMUK's 2012 governance review was,
in part, triggered by a trustee's Wikimedia-related consulting
activities while on the Board.
Speaking of conflating, there's a lot of conflating of "ethical" with "not
specifically against WMF policy." This kind of insider favoritism among
boards *is* fraught with serious ethical concerns, no matter what
WMF's specific policies state. The fact when questioned, we're given
descriptions of the hiring timeline that are, in different places, both
inconsistent and opaque. If WMF policies don't specifically disallow this
kind of under-the-table dealing, then that's not evidence that the hiring
is OK, that's evidence that WMF policies are sorely lacking. The lookback
period for private inurement and private benefit to disqualified persons is
five years for a reason.
I'd feel this way no matter how high quality the hire is. It's
fundamentally wrong and comes after some really cynical manipulations of
election and board rules by this board over the last year. That this hire
is also a controversial figure in English Wikipedia for multiple reasons is
irrelevant to the insider favoritism shown here.
I maintain that the ethical solution is a simple one: a cancellation of the
hiring and, in my opinion, resignation letters from the person or people
with the final say over this decision, no matter in how good faith the
decision was. If not unethical because of good faith, it's a flabbergasting
example of poor judgment.
Best,
Dan
attachment
attachment.htm
Chris Keating
5:31 p.m.
...
I will note that, as Chris pointed out, even WMUK's current policies
would permit a transaction like the one we're discussing if approved
by the Board ("no trustee may _without the consent of the board_"
[8]), and Wikimedia Austria's Good Governance Kodex would permit it if
approved by the Gremium ("bedarf diese Anstellung der ausdrücklichen
Genehmigung durch das Good-Governance-Gremium" [9]).
If such transactions are sometimes viewed as permissible, as part of
harmonizing governance standards, it would be good to enumerate
examples: would this transaction qualify? If the emerging consensus is
to enforce waiting periods at all times, clauses which permit Boards
to overrule them should perhaps be revised as part of harmonization
efforts.
Hi Erik,
Indeed, most of these policies are written with a certain level of
flexibility. And I do know of cases where board members of affiliates have
gone on to have staff roles within the movement, and asked for and received
permission to do so. So why might this be a problem and other instances not
a problem?
It's probably worth setting out the objective of this kind of policy, which
is to give confidence that organisations are making decisions based on what
will best fulfill their mission, and to avoid the perception that decisions
are made for the personal gain of trustees.
Whatever a conflict of interest policy says, if it doesn't end up achieving
that goal, then either the policy or the associated decision-making is at
fault.
My concern over this specific instance is prompted by several things:
- A paid role has been created for a specific person, based on their
contributions as a trustee
- the trustee concerned was involved in shaping the role: certainly at a
'meta' level in terms of championing the work area the role is about, and
evidently also in conversations about how the role would work out while
still being Chair of the organisation
- there was no open recruitment process, so it's unclear if there really
was no other conceivable candidate. I understand this is not unheard of for
the WMF, but it's poor practice, particularly when there are
other warning flags. (I am told that when jobs are openly advertised, the
recruitment process can be long and arduous.)
- there was no gap at all between the trustee departing as Chair, and
starting the role. Indeed the role was evidently offered, in some form,
while the Trustee in question was still Chair of the Board.
- it's unclear in what manner or at what level of detail the Board's
approval of this was given
- all of this refers to a Chair of the Board of Trustees. Chairs are
typically responsible for the management of the Chief Executive on behalf
of the Board, which puts them in a particularly high-profile position.
While I don't fully understand how this has worked out during the WMF
executive transition, it seems reasonable to ask whether the trustee in
question was simultaneously holding performance reviews or pay negotiations
with members of the WMF interim executive team while also having
conversations with them about what her own future paid role at the WMF
might be.
Thanks,
Chris
attachment
attachment.htm
Philip Kopetzky
6:27 p.m.
Adding to Chris' points, I would also like to illustrate the point where in
the future, founding a user group or chapter (the latter is pretty unlikely
nowadays), applying for a grant proposal and being hired by your colleagues
as the first staff member of the user group you founded would be something
totally legal, just lacking any ethical or moral compass.
Now of course whatever volunteer committee at the WMF rejects this proposal
would be confronted with the fact that the WMF saw no problem where this
affected the WMF. Good luck explaining that and keeping any sense of
ethical coherence.
I really hope the Movement Charter can provide some guidance on this issue,
which the WMF would have to adhere to as well.
Cheers,
Philip
On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 13:03, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
I will note that, as Chris pointed out, even WMUK's current policies
...
would permit a transaction like the one we're discussing if approved
by the Board ("no trustee may _without the consent of the board_"
[8]), and Wikimedia Austria's Good Governance Kodex would permit it if
approved by the Gremium ("bedarf diese Anstellung der ausdrücklichen
Genehmigung durch das Good-Governance-Gremium" [9]).
If such transactions are sometimes viewed as permissible, as part of
harmonizing governance standards, it would be good to enumerate
examples: would this transaction qualify? If the emerging consensus is
to enforce waiting periods at all times, clauses which permit Boards
to overrule them should perhaps be revised as part of harmonization
efforts.
Hi Erik,
Indeed, most of these policies are written with a certain level of
flexibility. And I do know of cases where board members of affiliates have
gone on to have staff roles within the movement, and asked for and received
permission to do so. So why might this be a problem and other instances not
a problem?
It's probably worth setting out the objective of this kind of policy,
which is to give confidence that organisations are making decisions based
on what will best fulfill their mission, and to avoid the perception that
decisions are made for the personal gain of trustees.
Whatever a conflict of interest policy says, if it doesn't end up
achieving that goal, then either the policy or the associated
decision-making is at fault.
My concern over this specific instance is prompted by several things:
A paid role has been created for a specific person, based on their
contributions as a trustee
the trustee concerned was involved in shaping the role: certainly at a
'meta' level in terms of championing the work area the role is about, and
evidently also in conversations about how the role would work out while
still being Chair of the organisation
there was no open recruitment process, so it's unclear if there really
was no other conceivable candidate. I understand this is not unheard of for
the WMF, but it's poor practice, particularly when there are
other warning flags. (I am told that when jobs are openly advertised, the
recruitment process can be long and arduous.)
there was no gap at all between the trustee departing as Chair, and
starting the role. Indeed the role was evidently offered, in some form,
while the Trustee in question was still Chair of the Board.
it's unclear in what manner or at what level of detail the Board's
approval of this was given
all of this refers to a Chair of the Board of Trustees. Chairs are
typically responsible for the management of the Chief Executive on behalf
of the Board, which puts them in a particularly high-profile position.
While I don't fully understand how this has worked out during the WMF
executive transition, it seems reasonable to ask whether the trustee in
question was simultaneously holding performance reviews or pay negotiations
with members of the WMF interim executive team while also having
conversations with them about what her own future paid role at the WMF
might be.
Thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Paulo Santos Perneta
8:49 p.m.
"founding a user group or chapter (the latter is pretty unlikely
nowadays), applying
for a grant proposal and being hired by your colleagues as the first staff
member of the user group you founded would be something totally legal, just
lacking any ethical or moral compass." - I believe you are forgetting here
that both affiliate Board and affiliate staff often draw from exactly the
same pool (expert wikimedians), which is often a very limited pool. I
believe that as long as the hiring process is transparent, there's nothing
there "lacking any ethical or moral compass". Skilled human resources are
very limited, and very few people do not have to work, are retired or
otherwise can entirely dedicate themselves both to the Wikimedia projects
where they get the expertise, and to unpaid affiliate management.
Either those ppl can serve both as affiliate board and then staff (or vice
versa), or you'll hardly find anyone with the proper skills to be in any
board. This is especially true when being in an affiliate board exposes one
to all sorts of harassment, including in their private lives, due to the
affiliate association to WMF and Wikipédia. Harassment + having to work for
free (including in training and monitoring paid staff) -> Nobody wants this.
To be clear, I don't think this is the case with WMF Board, at all, where a
much larger pool is always available.
Best,
Paulo
Philip Kopetzky
philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
escreveu no dia domingo,
27/06/2021 à(s) 13:58:
...
Adding to Chris' points, I would also like to illustrate the point where
in the future, founding a user group or chapter (the latter is pretty
unlikely nowadays), applying for a grant proposal and being hired by your
colleagues as the first staff member of the user group you founded would be
something totally legal, just lacking any ethical or moral compass.
Now of course whatever volunteer committee at the WMF rejects this
proposal would be confronted with the fact that the WMF saw no problem
where this affected the WMF. Good luck explaining that and keeping any
sense of ethical coherence.
I really hope the Movement Charter can provide some guidance on this
issue, which the WMF would have to adhere to as well.
Cheers,
Philip
On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 13:03, Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
I will note that, as Chris pointed out, even WMUK's current policies
...
would permit a transaction like the one we're discussing if approved
by the Board ("no trustee may _without the consent of the board_"
[8]), and Wikimedia Austria's Good Governance Kodex would permit it if
approved by the Gremium ("bedarf diese Anstellung der ausdrücklichen
Genehmigung durch das Good-Governance-Gremium" [9]).
If such transactions are sometimes viewed as permissible, as part of
harmonizing governance standards, it would be good to enumerate
examples: would this transaction qualify? If the emerging consensus is
to enforce waiting periods at all times, clauses which permit Boards
to overrule them should perhaps be revised as part of harmonization
efforts.
Hi Erik,
Indeed, most of these policies are written with a certain level of
flexibility. And I do know of cases where board members of affiliates have
gone on to have staff roles within the movement, and asked for and received
permission to do so. So why might this be a problem and other instances not
a problem?
It's probably worth setting out the objective of this kind of policy,
which is to give confidence that organisations are making decisions based
on what will best fulfill their mission, and to avoid the perception that
decisions are made for the personal gain of trustees.
Whatever a conflict of interest policy says, if it doesn't end up
achieving that goal, then either the policy or the associated
decision-making is at fault.
My concern over this specific instance is prompted by several things:
A paid role has been created for a specific person, based on their
contributions as a trustee
the trustee concerned was involved in shaping the role: certainly at a
'meta' level in terms of championing the work area the role is about, and
evidently also in conversations about how the role would work out while
still being Chair of the organisation
there was no open recruitment process, so it's unclear if there really
was no other conceivable candidate. I understand this is not unheard of for
the WMF, but it's poor practice, particularly when there are
other warning flags. (I am told that when jobs are openly advertised, the
recruitment process can be long and arduous.)
there was no gap at all between the trustee departing as Chair, and
starting the role. Indeed the role was evidently offered, in some form,
while the Trustee in question was still Chair of the Board.
it's unclear in what manner or at what level of detail the Board's
approval of this was given
all of this refers to a Chair of the Board of Trustees. Chairs are
typically responsible for the management of the Chief Executive on behalf
of the Board, which puts them in a particularly high-profile position.
While I don't fully understand how this has worked out during the WMF
executive transition, it seems reasonable to ask whether the trustee in
question was simultaneously holding performance reviews or pay negotiations
with members of the WMF interim executive team while also having
conversations with them about what her own future paid role at the WMF
might be.
Thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Erik Moeller
28 Jun
28 Jun
10:45 a.m.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 5:03 AM Chris Keating
chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
...
My concern over this specific instance is prompted by several things:
Thanks for laying out these concerns very clearly, Chris! I'll
reiterate that, above all, my own biggest concern here is that
governance standards of the movement should evolve together, and it's
highly problematic if WMF is seen as holding itself to a different
standard than the organizations it works with. None of my comments are
intended to diminish that concern.
In terms of the specifics, within the current WMF policy which does
not yet include a waiting period, I feel that Amanda's statement [1]
addressed some of these points reasonably. Taking the statement at
face value, the key points to me are:
- the process began with staff identifying specific needs, not with a
desire to create a role for a trustee;
- everyone involved sought to navigate any real or perceived COI in
line with WMF's policies, and Maria has resigned as trustee before
taking on a paid role;
- the Board discussed the matter both through relevant committees and
in Executive Session without Maria present.
The contract itself is framed as temporary and presumably bound to a
well-defined Statement of Work. The distinction matters because an
organization's hiring processes for temporary contract roles may be
legitimately less involved than for permanent staff hires.
This is _not_ an argument against waiting periods for such contracts.
I can see the merit of pushing an organization to look beyond its
walls for any remunerated role, at least by default, and I can see why
governance experts have recommended as much in discussions with
affiliates. If I was part of an affiliate, I would be pissed if I had
been told to implement such a policy (possibly in a manner tied to
future funding), only to learn that WMF has never done the same.
But I also don't think what happened here should be overstated.
Organizations that want to hand out sinecures don't announce it on
public mailing lists in the form of high-visibility, high-stakes
contracts. I believe that the contract should proceed on its merits,
and the failure by WMF to adhere to standards that affiliates have
implemented is a separate matter.
YMMV. I won't be able to participate much more in this thread, so
please take that for what it's worth from an oldtimer with a single
digit edit count this year. :)
Regardless of whether the contract still proceeds, I would encourage
WMF to share the actual Statement of Work and other non-sensitive
contract parameters (duration; hours if specified). These are the
kinds of parameters that would typically be included in a public RfP.
Warmly,
Erik
[1]
Florence Devouard
25 Jun
25 Jun
2:15 a.m.
I believe Jan-Bart post reflect my perspective on the topic. I second.
Florence
PS: I will point out though... for historical perspective, that a rather
similar situation happened in the early years of the WMF, when Eric
Moeller chose to resign from his position as board member to be hired by
Sue Gartner as Deputy Director. The board was not involved in the
discussion, but was put in front of the "fait-accompli". But those were
early days.
Le 24/06/2021 à 16:43, Jan-Bart de Vreede a écrit :
...
Hey
So with all due respect and sympathy for the individuals involved and
me being unwilling to hurt people I feel it would be worse for me just
keep quiet.
The Foundation is supposed to be an example of good Governance for our
entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the past
20 years (and that is important: as our organisation and budget grows,
so do our responsibilities and the critical questions we get from the
world)
My personal opinion with regards to this announcement it comes down to
this:
It is NOT good governance to have a current board member suddenly
resign and then create a situation where that person receives
compensation for a position that seems to have been created
specifically for that board member (or at least was not publicly
posted?).
Even simpler
It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board
members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid
contractor/consultant.
No matter whether or not this is legally or procedurally explainable…
Jan-Bart de Vreede
(Writing this as a personal opinion)
...
On 23 Jun 2021, at 22:44, Maggie Dennis
> wrote:
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal
department. I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari
has agreed to consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and
the ongoing Board evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know
María from her role as the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees, from which she provided invaluable leadership in
governance, oversight, and fundraising. Others may know her from her
volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a
broad range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation
this week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the
Foundation to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s
Strategy and to tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she
will be supporting Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and
helping Margo Lee in improving onboarding, documentation practices,
and training.) María will report to me as part of our Community
Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited that she accepted our
offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly given how
important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more than
15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase
will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue
settling into our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to
seeing her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María
will be joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global
conversations
this
weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look
forward to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Adam Wight
24 Jun
24 Jun
9:08 p.m.
It's nice to read that chapters have been encouraged to tighten up their
governance, avoiding conflicts of interest and so on. But before we pile
onto this one issue, can we please step back and look at the Wikimedia
Foundation itself?
Technically, none of its Board members are elected. This is already a red
flag, only made more disturbing by the symbolic elections which are
respected according to the good will of the sitting Board, and which can
and have been reversed on a whim. Real elections would be governed by
well-understood non-profit law and would be rooted in direct ownership of
the corporation by its members (you, the contributors). Instead, we have
the Board continuously improvising the rules for "selecting" its new
members, and maintaining a majority of appointed members.
Next, if we're truly concerned with conflicts of interest *outside* of the
narrow yet vague definition in the Bylaws... Should we talk about a
for-profit wiki farm running at a scale comparable to Wikimedia, funded by
venture capital and plastered with advertisements? Interestingly, this
wiki farm was started at about the same time that Bomis was forced to
commit to not showing ads on Wikipedia, and many of the same Board members
sat on both the newly formed Wikimedia and the for-profit Board—and still
do.
I can imagine many potential conflicts of interest in this two-wiki
arrangement, most concerning is the possibility that the scope of Wikimedia
could be restricted in order to drive users towards the for-profit. Then
there's the possibility of building software using donation money, testing
it on volunteers, and then the for-profit getting it for free. Yet no
conflict of interest statement has been filed in 16 years of sharing Board
members between these sites. Without a formal declaration of conflict of
interest, our Bylaws give us no tools to prevent corruption.
We don't have to assume any malice here, the point of conflict of interest
is that humans are not rational, they are subject to cognitive dissonance,
and we cannot trust even the best of us to make the right decisions when
our allegiances are split.
Before we try to deny an outgoing Board chair the opportunity to *help* our
movement, perhaps we can look at the many structural issues with WMF
governance? I understand that most of us are starting their missive with a
positive note of appreciation for María, but this still feels like a
personal attack on a person who just spent c. 8 years of their time
volunteering for us in a high-stress capacity. We want María advising the
Board. This is not a highly-paid executive position. We also want to close
the revolving door and institute other normal, democratic controls.
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:45 PM Maggie Dennis
mdennis@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello, all. :)
I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
Sustainability group of Wikimedia Foundation, within the Legal department.
I wanted to announce with pleasure that Maria Sefidari has agreed to
consult with the Foundation on Movement Strategy and the ongoing Board
evolution for the upcoming year. Many of us know María from her role as the
chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from which she
provided invaluable leadership in governance, oversight, and fundraising.
Others may know her from her volunteer work as User:Raystorm
, in which she has a broad
range of experience.
María, based in Spain, commenced her assignment with the Foundation this
week. We intend to tap into her expertise and knowledge of the Foundation
to support a successful implementation of the Movement’s Strategy and to
tap into new opportunities. (With her Board work, she will be supporting
Quim Gil’s team with the Board election and helping Margo Lee in improving
onboarding, documentation practices, and training.) María will report to me
as part of our Community Resilience & Sustainability group. I’m excited
that she accepted our offer for a more hands-on assignment, particularly
given how important all of the work she’ll be supporting is. :) With more
than 15 years of Wikimedia experience, her contributions in the next phase
will be a tremendous benefit to me and my team as we continue settling into
our own work on Movement Strategy.
Those of you who are involved with Movement Strategy are used to seeing
her at related meetings and still will. :) I anticipate María will be
joining one or more of the Movement Strategy global conversations
this weekend. Advertisement alert: maybe you can, too? Here’s more detail
I myself will be attending at least one of those sessions and look forward
to seeing some of you there.
Warm regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
aketon＠wikimedia.org
25 Jun
25 Jun
7:56 a.m.
Hello again,
Thank you to everyone that has provided valuable feedback. Moving forward, we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices. Developing a more clear and consistent policy approach to future decisions is important for us.
Maggie had been planning to do a community office hour in July in order to avoid conflicting with annual plan discussions and Movement Strategy meetings. We’ve decided instead to host that time next week. I’ll be there as General Counsel and also as a member of the transition team and am working to see if the other members of the Transition Team or Board of Trustees will be able to join me so we can discuss any further questions or concerns you may have. I’m prioritizing doing this sooner over making sure everyone can attend. It’s less notice than we would like to give, but otherwise it would be well into July before we’d be able. The time and details will be coming very soon, hopefully tomorrow.
Best regards,
Amanda
Dan Szymborski
9:44 a.m.
"Moving forward" would involve directly addressing and fixing this shocking
example of board malgovernance, not corporate-doublespeaking about the
future in a way that avoids any and all culpability and transparency for
this gross ethical lapse. This doesn't need to be "explained" to us; it
needs to be remedied. Preferably with pen, paper, and farewells for the
pushers of this latest débâcle.
Best,
Dan
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:27 PM
aketon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello again,
Thank you to everyone that has provided valuable feedback. Moving forward,
we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these
important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant
policies, procedures, and practices. Developing a more clear and consistent
policy approach to future decisions is important for us.
Maggie had been planning to do a community office hour in July in order to
avoid conflicting with annual plan discussions and Movement Strategy
meetings. We’ve decided instead to host that time next week. I’ll be there
as General Counsel and also as a member of the transition team and am
working to see if the other members of the Transition Team or Board of
Trustees will be able to join me so we can discuss any further questions or
concerns you may have. I’m prioritizing doing this sooner over making sure
everyone can attend. It’s less notice than we would like to give, but
otherwise it would be well into July before we’d be able. The time and
details will be coming very soon, hopefully tomorrow.
Best regards,
Amanda
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
3:55 p.m.
"Thank you to everyone that has provided valuable feedback. Moving forward,
we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these
important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant
policies, procedures, and practices. Developing a more clear and consistent
policy approach to future decisions is important for us."
Andreas
attachment
attachment.htm
Dan Garry (Deskana)
9:50 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 11:26, Andreas Kolbe
jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
...
That is an unhelpful and incredibly inappropriate response.
Dan
attachment
attachment.htm
mail＠pavelrichter.de
6:09 p.m.
Dear Amanda,
it is good to hear that you will take this advise and the discussion under consideration for future decisions of this kind. But what about the one we are talking about right now? Will the WMF review it´s decision to hire the former chair of its own board, or not?
Besides all the good arguments from Jan-Bart, Chris and many others here: How is hiring the former Board chair not covered under the Conflict of Interest policy of the WMF? Cleary, the former Chair of the Board falls under the "Covered Person" definition - and the policy clearly coveres not only *actual* CoI, but also *peceived* ones?
Cheers,
Pavel
nosebagbear＠gmail.com
10:13 p.m.
Hi Amanda, [Apologies if accidental double-post]
"Moving forward, we will
articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important discussions and
our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices."
That would be a reasonable statement if this were a more marginally concerning action - something that promoted some concerns, and pointed to potential greater future issues if not resolved.
However this indicates the WMF is willing to accept that an error was made, but not actually vitiate that error. It also concerns me that the WMF were *not* aware of Community & affiliate norms in this field - what level of oversight of affiliate governance is occurring that there being significant affiliates with provisions like this not be known?
Like functionally the entire participant list of the email thread to date, I don't think there was any absence of good faith from key actors. But nor do I think it's "merely" (and it's a very big "merely" indeed) an optics complaint. There are genuine accidental COI issues that arise, as well as the instance raising genuine concerns at the decision-making and awareness of community values that anyone operating in such a significant consulting role in the most critical field of discussions the movement has had in a decade.
Yours,
Nosebagbear
Paulo Santos Perneta
26 Jun
26 Jun
12:23 a.m.
"It also concerns me that the WMF were *not* aware of Community & affiliate
norms in this field - what level of oversight of affiliate governance is
occurring that there being significant affiliates with provisions like this
not be known?"
This is a question I would really like to be answered. For way more than a
decade, the WMF Board maintains a committee precisely to deal with those
issues - first ChapCom, now AffCom. How come this disconnection is
happening between the Board, and their own committee?
P.
nosebagbear@gmail.com
escreveu no dia sexta, 25/06/2021 à(s) 18:19:
...
Hi Amanda, [Apologies if accidental double-post]
"Moving forward, we will
articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important
discussions and
our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and
practices."
That would be a reasonable statement if this were a more marginally
concerning action - something that promoted some concerns, and pointed to
potential greater future issues if not resolved.
However this indicates the WMF is willing to accept that an error was
made, but not actually vitiate that error. It also concerns me that the WMF
were *not* aware of Community & affiliate norms in this field - what level
of oversight of affiliate governance is occurring that there being
significant affiliates with provisions like this not be known?
Like functionally the entire participant list of the email thread to date,
I don't think there was any absence of good faith from key actors. But nor
do I think it's "merely" (and it's a very big "merely" indeed) an optics
complaint. There are genuine accidental COI issues that arise, as well as
the instance raising genuine concerns at the decision-making and awareness
of community values that anyone operating in such a significant consulting
role in the most critical field of discussions the movement has had in a
decade.
Yours,
Nosebagbear
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Michel Vuijlsteke
25 Jun
25 Jun
3:41 p.m.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 18:45, Adam Wight
adam.m.wight@gmail.com
wrote:
...
I can imagine many potential conflicts of interest in this two-wiki
arrangement, most concerning is the possibility that the scope of Wikimedia
could be restricted in order to drive users towards the for-profit.
This is not a hypothetical. Contrary to the "Imagine a world in which every
single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human
knowledge. That's what we're doing." tenet, massive amounts of information
has been actively moved off Wikipedia to for-profit wikis -- I'm talking of
course about such things as Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokémon etc.
Michel
attachment
attachment.htm
wikicabayi＠gmail.com
26 Jun
26 Jun
7:33 p.m.
Maggie,
How widely was this role advertised? Where?
In 2019 Maria's partner invoked a process which, judging from the ensuing furore, was known only to Foundation insiders. That episode ripped the English Wikipedia community apart for months after, and still casts a long shadow.
In 2021 Maria is appointed to a vacancy which apparently was known only to Foundation insiders. Whatever she brings to the role it doesn't appear to be a sensitivity to the need for, or the appearance of, openness.
Cabayi
1666
Age (days ago)
1766
Last active (days ago)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
68 comments
35 participants
tags
(0)
participants
(35)
Adam Wight
aketon＠wikimedia.org
Amanda Keton
Andreas Kolbe
Andy Mabbett
Bence Damokos
Chris Keating
Christophe Henner
Chuck Roslof
Dan Garry (Deskana)
Dan Szymborski
effe iets anders
Erik Moeller
F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
Florence Devouard
Fæ
geni
Gerard Meijssen
Jan-Bart de Vreede
Katherine Maher
Kunal Mehta
Maggie Dennis
mail＠pavelrichter.de
Maor Malul
Michael Maggs
Michel Vuijlsteke
nosebagbear＠gmail.com
Paulo Santos Perneta
Philip Kopetzky
Risker
Samuel Klein
Shani Evenstein
The Cunctator
wikicabayi＠gmail.com
টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta