This seems very, very, very, very, very fishy to me.

How does a non-profit 501-c-3 that files a Form 990 intend to keep secret, forever, a severance package for one of the top paid employees of the organization?

What rotten thing is going on here?

Someone pointed out to me the very peculiar characteristic of this line:

"The Wikimedia Foundation believes Mike has always acted in what he believes to be the Wikimedia Foundation’s best interests."

With an array of exquisite flavours, combined with our highly knowledgeable sales team, I'm sure we can continue the positive momentum throughout the Winter period, and capitalise on current consumer trends for premium products.

Quite interesting that they wrote up a Q&A summary that anticipated most of the usual questions. Have they done that before?

Who will be involved in the hiring process and how will it work?

Alright, so, the thing is, we're going to all put the name of a lawyer that we used to work with into a hat, and then I'm going to randomly pick one of those names out of that hat. This way everything is like totally fair, ya know?

I did not heretofore understand that FAQ meant Frequently Avoided Questions.

...and three days notice? WTF?

I'm currently reading an account of the Tlatelolco Massacre of '68. After the event one of the students described the way they read the newspapers as "Why is my government telling me this particular lie at this particular moment?"

Mike Godwin is probably just enjoying his success as managing director, Mövenpick Ice Cream, if I understand this piece in Eat Out magazine. I know some of you are saying "That's not the same Mike Godwin" (and "That's not how I pictured a magazine named Eat Out"), but check out this quote:Clearly a lawyer.

a severance package for one of the top paid employees of the organization?

This was probably intended to be the next best thing after "If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all."

How does a non-profit 501-c-3 that files a Form 990 intend to keep secret, forever, a severance package for one of the top paid employees of the organization?

meh ... sounds like he got laid off - fired without cause.

That's the official line, of course. But the reality is that he was shoved out the door for being incompatible with Sue's vision of what Wikimedia is about.

It'll be interesting whether Erik gets shoved next. He's pretty much the last of "Jimmy's people" (defined as people who were part of the Foundation before Sue came along). Jimmy himself better be watching his back; it's a matter of time before Sue and Company decide that he, too, is redundant.

That's the official line, of course. But the reality is that he was shoved out the door for being incompatible with Sue's vision of what Wikimedia is about.

It'll be interesting whether Erik gets shoved next. He's pretty much the last of "Jimmy's people" (defined as people who were part of the Foundation before Sue came along). Jimmy himself better be watching his back; it's a matter of time before Sue and Company decide that he, too, is redundant.

Why is Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation?

Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation is a confidential
issue, and the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t talk about confidential
personnel issues with anyone except the people directly involved. We
want to handle this kind of thing with respect for people’s privacy
and dignity, and we are hopeful we can do that in this instance. That
means, we’re not going to answer this question, and we hope you will
understand why.

I would imagine he knows too much. They don't want the world know know how much they're paying him, to go away and never talk.

> I like Mike, and I know that it’s a tough economy. Can I ask what the
> Wikimedia Foundation is doing to ensure that Mike is okay while he
> figures out his next steps?
>
> Yes. The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that
> we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he
> wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we
> won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured
> that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to
> advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him
> continue making an important contribution.

It'll be interesting whether Erik gets shoved next. He's pretty much the last of "Jimmy's people" (defined as people who were part of the Foundation before Sue came along). Jimmy himself better be watching his back; it's a matter of time before Sue and Company decide that he, too, is redundant.

Ja, that was my thought as well.

Quite a change from your previous position that Jimbo has the ultimate power to do whatever he wants. When did your opinion on this change, around the time of the departure of Cary Bass?

In any case, I think Erik would be far too happy to finally "vote Jimmy off the island" to call him one of "Jimmy's people".

It'll be interesting whether Erik gets shoved next.

Mod Note: Moved OT tax stuff to the lounge.

You missed one, the first one.

The facts are a little sketchy, but as best I can determine, it looks like Mike simply refused to take the "standard offer."

I guess it's possible that they had to oust him because after all this time, he finally got around to reading a legal textbook and realized that what the WMF does has been utterly illegal all along...


Maybe. It's just a hunch, but my guess is that Mr. Moeller was the "prime mover" in ousting Mr. Godwin. (He's a sneaky guy, that Erik!)

What might be the nature of the Godwin/Moeller rift?

This one? I thought Milton hadn't completely went off the OT rails just yet. Also left one by CW that was "mixed." Moving is bad enough but splitting a post gets the locals all upset.

Don't quote me on this one, as I haven't researched it, but I believe that only "normal" compensation is required to be included on a 990. It could be that they have interpreted a termination "settlement" as something other than that. Also, if he was neither an officer or one of the five most highly paid employees, then he won't be there either.

I'm surprised they don't pose as a "faith-based organization" and claim exemption from filing that.

Once a candidate pool is developed, interviews will be held. The
interviewing process will likely include at a minimum Sue Gardner,
Erik Moeller, Cyn Skyberg, Kat Walsh, Arne Klempert, and Barry
Newstead. There will probably also be others involved (e.g., possibly
additional board members, and possibly additional members of the
senior staff), but that’s the skeleton plan we have right now.

I just checked in on this thread, and was amazed to discover that an old familiar name,
one Samuel Klein, was reading it.
(He has a WR account but has never said anything.)

Well, Master Klein? Would you care to comment?

I just checked in on this thread, and was amazed to discover that an old familiar name,
one Samuel Klein, was reading it.
(He has a WR account but has never said anything.)

Well, Master Klein? Would you care to comment?

Quite interesting that they wrote up a Q&A summary that anticipated most of the usual questions. Have they done that before?

If nothing else, Mr. Godwin will be remembered as the genius who somehow finagled the switch from GFDL to CC-by-SA.

In any case, I think Erik would be far too happy to finally "vote Jimmy off the island" to call him one of "Jimmy's people".

I don't consider him the agent of change on that item. I believe Moeller was the perpetrator of that sham.

My hope is that this is a move away from FreeKulture. Not only will this open up the possibility of acting in a more responsible manner but strained relations might make FK and the tech press less likely to circle the wagons the next time WP steps in something nasty. Yep, could be Erik next.

I don't consider him the agent of change on that item. I believe Moeller was the perpetrator of that sham.

Well whoever it was established once and for all the free licenses are a farce and once you release material on them anyone can do anything they want and the grantor of the license is powerless to do anything about it.

That says to me "fired, but we gave him a settlement in return for his silence".

The usual mantra is "mutual agreement" or "personal reasons" but this says "personnel", which looks to me like "fired for cause".

Or it could be they meant 'personal issues' but messed up the spelling, which is always possible in Wikipedian matters.

And of course, "undue weight".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=...58439&diff=prev

Funny that a Wikimedia mailing list is a reliable source. They should have sourced it to the independent media.

That could happen, but there's no reason to believe it will. Sue's only interest in governing Wikimedia as her personal fiefdom is going to be in maintaining revenue. While I don't believe she has any real commitment to FreeKulture the way Moeller does, at the same time she probably believes that many of her donors do, and so she will not actively encourage any change on this front. Absent Moeller's influence, I suspect Wikimedia would move away from its current positions on such matters only in a piecemeal fashion, as specific incidents lead to ad hoc edicts necessary to keep specific donors happy.