Florence Devouard Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 17 03:01:27 UTC 2007
Dear community,

As chair of the board of trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to announce that Erik Moeller has decided to resign from the board two days ago. Erik decided to reorient his activities in other directions,
and I hope we'll continue to be able to work together constructively from here on.

A few days ago, Lodewijk pointed out to me that I forgot to announce clearly to this list that Michael Davis was no more board member, as planned at last october board meeting. As a reminder, Michael Davis had
expressed the wish to move on and leave his seat for a while already. He officially quit the seat end of november. Michael has helped greatly in the first years of existence of the Foundation, so I hope you will have a thank you thought for him. You hardly ever heard of him, but he was really helpful a several critical moments in the life of the Foundation.


The board is consequently now back at 5 members, Kat Welsh, Frieda Brioschi, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Jimmy Wales and myself.Michael seat is more or less reserved to our future treasurer, or if we
can not find the treasurer as board member, at least to a skilled-financial oriented person.

Erik's seat is open again. The board agreed to propose the seat to a community member, and agreed on a person. The person has been approached and has not given any answer yet. There is no real urgency anyway.The seat will be an appointed one, up for new elections in a few months.

In a situation where we will welcome many more staff members not from the community, I think it is doubly important that the board membership be from the community. I will personally support an increase of the
membership, with a focus on members coming from the community. I'd love as well having a seat or more being a representant from the chapters.Recently, there has been discussions over the limited professional
skills of board members. At the same time, we are developing a staff
mostly made of highly skilled professionals.

I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love,
without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.

Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.

My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.

I do not share the same optimism than Jimbo with regards to Knol. I think Knol is probably our biggest threat since the creation of Wikipedia. I really mean the biggest. Maybe not so much the project
itself, but the competition it will create, the PR consequences, the financial tsunami, the confusion in people minds (free as in free speech or as in free of charge). Many parties are trying to influence us, to buy us, and conflicts of interest are becoming the rule rather than the exception. There are power struggles on the path.

Rather than spending time bugging the board about whether we did a background check on Carolyn 18 months ago (we did not, period), I'd like the current community to realize that we are currently at a crossroad. The staff will hopefully stabilize and be successful under the
leadership of Sue. I trust her to have this strength. But the organization in its whole is currently oscillating. We can try the path of the community, at the risk of being engulfed by the big ones. We can try the path of letting our future in the hands of the big shots, at the risk of loosing what is making us unique.



Best

Florence

Gregory Maxwell
Mon Dec 17 03:24:58 UTC 2007

[offlist]

On Dec 16, 2007 10:01 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
[snip]
> I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly
> made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be
> top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a
> background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such
> as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee
> wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love,
> without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized
> organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
[snip]

I think it's important to note that *everyone* makes mistakes. So
there is far less of a trade-off then you might fear.

Florence at times you are too humble, but I believe that this is a
quality in an organization which is at times afflicted with excessive
hubris. When I think about the current controversies, I find myself
coming back to things you wanted to do in the past which would have
avoided them. I think we all would do well to listen more to you.

I have a lot of thoughts about the advisory board, and how little they
seem to have done for us. The whole concept of appointing big names
seems more like payoff and less like wisdom as time goes on. Finding
good people with the right interests, skills, and without huge
conflicts of interest is just hard no matter how you cut it.. At least
when you pull from the community you are sure to get people who love
and understand the internals of the projects. Your vision of simply
keeping a majority is simply a good one, and it's the only thing that
gives me hope. There *are* many good outsiders we can choose from to
fill the balance, but it will take time and introspection to make the
right decisions.

Your message was good, in general, I think.. but it may have left
people thinking that Erik was leaving Wikimedia, and not really moving
on to a position of even more power. So that might create some
confusion, but I understand that not everything can be announced at
once and that stuff isn't final.

I'm sorry that it's been so long since I've written to you. Honestly,
I'd lost some faith in the organization. I'm glad to see that you are
still shaking things up and doing you best to keep moving in the
interest of the public and the community. Please, keep in touch even
if I forget.

Thank you for all your hard work!
-- Greg

If WMF had any sense they would humbly go, hat in hand, to some credible non-profit advocacy group such as The National Council of Nonprofit Associations and beg them to select a serious non-profit person to serve on the Board of Trustee. I will bet dollars to donuts that WMF does not even belong to a single non-profit or charitable advocacy organization.

Hi folks,

I am delighted to announce Erik Moeller as Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Erik will take up his new responsibilities in our San Francisco headquarters beginning January 10, and will report directly to me. As part of this transition, and as you know already from Florence's announcement yesterday, Erik has resigned from his role as Board member.

Erik is well-known in the Wikimedia community. A twice-elected board member, he has been active in the projects since 2001. Through his six years of volunteer participation, he has made thousands of edits and uploads, contributed to the MediaWiki software, helped launch Wikinews and Commons, and supported the organization in numerous other ways. He is also the author of "Die heimliche Medienrevolution," one of the first books to include an in-depth analysis of wiki collaboration.

Most recently, Erik has been Chief Technology Officer of Stichting Open Progress, where he managed a decentralized team of developers in the implementation of OmegaWiki, a collaborative ontology database. He also provides hosting for several wiki communities, including WikiEducator.org, and has project-managed other wiki software development projects such as the LiquidThreads discussion system.

Our chief technical officer, Brion Vibber, will report to Erik. In addition, I will be delegating specific projects to him, and he will act on my behalf when I am traveling or otherwise unavailable. He will also play an important role in orienting the new San Francisco staff, and helping them to understand the processes, history and values of the Wikimedia projects.

Since I joined the Foundation in June, I have been impressed with Erik's commitment, hard work and evangelism on behalf of Wikimedia. I know he will now be able to make an even greater contribution to what we do, and I'm very pleased he's agreed to join the staff in the new office.

Please join me in welcoming Erik to the staff of the foundation.

Sue Gardner
Executive Director,
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Has anybody here read Die heimliche Medienrevolution?

Eloquence
administrator
developer
former trustee, Wikimedia Foundation Erik Moeller
Berlin, Germany
age:28
Angela Beesley is an ex-girlfriend

Our chief technical officer, Brion Vibber, will report to Erik.

Thank you, Sue. :-)

WMF has been a tiny, infrastructure focused organization based in St. Petersburg, Florida. And in some ways that's good: we've learned to utilize minimal resources to accomplish amazing things; we've built large, decentralized networks of volunteers to get things done.

On the other hand, the number of educational opportunities that have passed us by simply because we did not have the opportunity to respond or the ability to execute has been staggering.

We could have decided that we'll never be able to respond to a partnership proposal from a major university, or put together a grant, or execute a strategic priority like single user login or stable versions. We have decided, however, that our mission and vision is to empower everyone to share in the sum of human knowledge. And that desire is leading us to a new morning, a new beginning.

We're not just a Foundation to host servers. We are a charity of free knowledge.

Our relocation, our new hires, the first systematic budget, all these are requirements for growing up: not sufficient, but necessary. And the warm welcome we've already received in San Francisco is great -- few locations host so many unique and amazing organizations. It seems deeply appropriate for us to be there. :-)

Sue, you've brought an unprecedented level of professionalism to WMF, and I consider it a pleasure and an honor to be given the opportunity to work with you. Planet Earth hungers for knowledge. We have a lot of work cut out for us - let's get to it!

WikiLove,
Erik

Hmm... Putting aside the way the sheer self-righteousness of this makes me totally want to hurl, it's interesting that he would mention "single user login or stable versions" specifically. I'm not saying those things are bad, in fact they're probably good, I'm just curious as to why he'd mention them.

I'm more concerned about Erik's relocation expenses, if they're moving him from Berlin to San Francisco. They'll have a hard time finding a super-tanker big enough to carry that much starry-eyed self-righteousness all the way across the Atlantic...

As for the audit, that could be another problem. They'll definitely have to find those missing sideburns before the auditor shows up.

Well, we might ask well as the obvious tabloid question : Are wedding bells in store for Angela and Erik?

Enquiring minds want to know!

(And never might the obvious WMF/Wikia COI that this would generate...We're all hopeless romantics around here...)

At 28 it is much to early for Erik to settle down into marriage. On WP that is too young to even decide on a stable gender, much less orientation.

Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who
is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and
openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement
about? I call BS.

-Chad H.

Uh oh... There's trouble (already) on the Erik hiring front:



And Kelly goes into more thorough detail on her blog.

They seem to have trouble even doing "right" a simple, feel-good hire of a resigning Board member.

The first thing I thought of was "how are they going to get this guy a working visa when they haven't done a job search?". I don't see how that can happen, given the circumstances. If it can and does happen, then that raises a whole lot of other questions regarding how it happened.

As usual lately, Kelly's right on the mark!

If anyone feels they have been discriminated they should nevertheless consult local counsel as the employee count is a very close thing, there may be employees that that we are unaware of, the count may be subject to interpretation, and other forms of relief may be available.

That's going to cause some friction.

Hmm... Putting aside the way the sheer self-righteousness of this makes me totally want to hurl, it's interesting that he would mention "single user login or stable versions" specifically. I'm not saying those things are bad, in fact they're probably good, I'm just curious as to why he'd mention them.

This is the first time I've ever had the nagging feeling that WP might be fucked.

Maybe. But only if things like this were ever picked up and widely-disseminated in the press.

This is the first time I've ever had the nagging feeling that WP might be fucked.

At least the first time I've felt the feeling and haven't been able to rationalize it away. The crumbling facade is becoming way too obvious.

I have information that the Associated Press will be running a story on the Carolyn COO adventure in the next 24 hours. Keep watch, faithful Reviewers.

Hi Jeff.

I feel sorry for you (and no humour here; this is sincere). I believe that you really did think that WP was on the level.

It's hard to accept when something that you believe in turns out to be the 'ole shell game, but yes, Virginia there is no Santa Claus.

...after the Executive Director making a public "preferably not an American" comment...

Is this a rumor, or can it be substantiated?

I've sent the story to my three favorite attorney friends, just to see if they have anything to say. I'm going to guess that, because the WMF has only 9 employees, none of these shenanigans are going to be "illegal". However, they will almost certainly be viewed as unfair or even unethical, and that won't be good for the big, generous donors to hear about.

Greg

Especially troubling was Sue's decision (as reportedly indicated in an email to the Foundation's "internal" mailing list) to make "preferably not an American" a qualification for this position; not only does that violate the Foundation's own EOE policy, but several aspects of the law as well. Earth to Mike Godwin? Hello? Are you listening?

Is this a rumor, or can it be substantiated?

That means someone on the mailing list has to leak it, but unless at least one other person confirms it, such a leak is not reliable evidence.

I'm basing this on Kelly's Blog:


I'm not sure which list she is talking about. Can anyone help with a link or the text?

I still wouldn't have chosen Erik Moeller, obviously, but they're international in scope, and in case folks haven't noticed, the good ol' USA isn't exactly at the height of its popularity at the moment. All they've really had until now is Florence Devouard, but there was that incident a few months ago when she said all that embarrassing stuff at a public conference about how they're running out of cash...

I suspect Erik actually does have some experience with software internationalization and localization in general, which isn't an easy thing to be good at, as I've learned first-hand. And of course, MediaWiki in particular. On the minus side, though, he seems to want to encourage Wikipedians to make photos of themselves available. We all know what that leads to!

I have information that the Associated Press will be running a story on the Carolyn COO adventure in the next 24 hours. Keep watch, faithful Reviewers.

I feel sorry for you (and no humour here; this is sincere). I believe that you really did think that WP was on the level.

It's hard to accept when something that you believe in turns out to be the 'ole shell game, but yes, Virginia there is no Santa Claus.

Please - the system has been corrupt since before I got involved with the project, and they certainly didn't do anything to fix it. If anything, the unfortunate fact is that the rot went further up the vine than I anticipated.

Okay, here's what I really don't get (apart from the COI that going from an unpaid position to a unannounced paid position entails)...

In the recent posted job description, Sue writes as a requirement... "Good grasp of issues/crisis/risk management, media/public/stakeholder relations, safeguarding of brand;"

Okaaaaay... so why hire a guy that at least as recently as May was advocating strongly for re-branding all WMF projects as Wikipedia Projects (e.g. Wiktionary becomes Wikipedia Dictionary, etc.)? After he got destroyed by members of non-pedia projects, as well as from some well known members in the community (David Gerard, Kelly Martin, Robert Horning for example), he discarded people's objections went on to say "my conviction that we should rebrand the projects soon has only grown through the discussion so far." I think this was around the time Danny left the WMF (and on his way out saying things about protecting the brand).

Nice response by The Cunctator a few minutes ago, too.