Well. The rhetoric has been turned up a notch: Gerard Meissner (or however his name is spelled), well known to be Erik Moeller's attack dog, has called for the Board to repudiate the election results if Danny is one of the winning candidates. He further suggests that this notion has the support of Jan-Bart. His argument seems to rest on the incoherent theory that it is somehow a conflict of interest for Danny to run for the Board after previously having been an employee. What the argument really is is that Gerard, Erik, Jan-Bart, and presumably Florence do not like Danny and do not want him elected; apparently they are willing to go to any length to ensure that he is not. I suppose we should be thankful that the Wikimedia Black Ops Squad that we occasionally joke about does not actually exist....
Gerard's hypocrisy is especially obvious in his criticism of Greg Maxwell's get out the vote activity. Gerard has no similarly harsh words for the similar activities pursued by Wikimedia Germany, presumably because Germans are simply expected to support other candidates (see, for example, well-known German Wikimedian Elian's comments on the candidates; in German; curious that the German Wikipedia allows editors to maintain blogs in their userspace). His anti-American attitudes are also quite apparent, underscoring my own comments earlier in this blog.
As to why I call Gerard Erik's attack-puppy: On many occasions, back when I used to read the Wikimedia mailing lists, I would notice a pattern of someone asking Erik a barbed question, which would be answered not by Erik, but by Gerard. These replies from Gerard would generally be vitriolic in nature. Erik might then later come along and add some comments that would appear far less vitriolic by comparison. After seeing this pattern over and over again, and not seeing it with any other combination of contributors, it became the inevitable conclusion: Gerard is essentially the "bad cop" to Erik's "good cop".
Update: In response to the individual who wrote about the legal repercussions of ignoring the results of the vote, I point out again that the Foundation restructured itself last year so as not to have members. This means that the only people who can sue the Board or any member for such matters would be the Florida Attorney General, and perhaps other members of the Board. The election is technically totally advisory; the Board is free to do whatever it wants with the results, including ignoring them entirely. We, the supposed members of the Foundation, only have their good faith that they will not do this. Of course, if they do do that, I imagine the negative publicity might have an impact on fundraising; while there are no longer any legal recourses against the Foundation for such tomfoolery, the Board must needs consider that its actions might have an impact on its ability to continue to raise the capital it needs to finance its silly little games, not to mention continue publishing Wikipedia and its related projects. I, personally, stopped donating to the Foundation last year, in order to save up for Wikimania; I did not reinstate my pledge when I was in a financial position to do so because I was dissatisfied with the direction things were going at that time. I am certainly not renewing it now, and I believe my decision not to renew my pledge has been justified time and time again.
Gerard's hypocrisy is especially obvious in his criticism of Greg Maxwell's get out the vote activity. Gerard has no similarly harsh words for the similar activities pursued by Wikimedia Germany, presumably because Germans are simply expected to support other candidates (see, for example, well-known German Wikimedian Elian's comments on the candidates; in German; curious that the German Wikipedia allows editors to maintain blogs in their userspace). His anti-American attitudes are also quite apparent, underscoring my own comments earlier in this blog.
As to why I call Gerard Erik's attack-puppy: On many occasions, back when I used to read the Wikimedia mailing lists, I would notice a pattern of someone asking Erik a barbed question, which would be answered not by Erik, but by Gerard. These replies from Gerard would generally be vitriolic in nature. Erik might then later come along and add some comments that would appear far less vitriolic by comparison. After seeing this pattern over and over again, and not seeing it with any other combination of contributors, it became the inevitable conclusion: Gerard is essentially the "bad cop" to Erik's "good cop".
Update: In response to the individual who wrote about the legal repercussions of ignoring the results of the vote, I point out again that the Foundation restructured itself last year so as not to have members. This means that the only people who can sue the Board or any member for such matters would be the Florida Attorney General, and perhaps other members of the Board. The election is technically totally advisory; the Board is free to do whatever it wants with the results, including ignoring them entirely. We, the supposed members of the Foundation, only have their good faith that they will not do this. Of course, if they do do that, I imagine the negative publicity might have an impact on fundraising; while there are no longer any legal recourses against the Foundation for such tomfoolery, the Board must needs consider that its actions might have an impact on its ability to continue to raise the capital it needs to finance its silly little games, not to mention continue publishing Wikipedia and its related projects. I, personally, stopped donating to the Foundation last year, in order to save up for Wikimania; I did not reinstate my pledge when I was in a financial position to do so because I was dissatisfied with the direction things were going at that time. I am certainly not renewing it now, and I believe my decision not to renew my pledge has been justified time and time again.
Both the Foundation and the individual board members are potentially in real legal danger under U.S. and Florida law if they try to repudiate Danny's election (if it occurs). While individual board members cannot be sued personally in most other cases when the Foundation is sued, this sort of thing would be probably be an exception.
ReplyDeleteU.S. laws vary by state and there may be a way around this, however, before undertaking anything of this sort, board members must consult a competent lawyer familiar with Florida laws and legal precedents. You can't just look at the law by itself under the U.S. system -- legal precedents (previous interpretations of the Florida law by judges in similar cases) also have the effect of the laws themselves.
Otherwise, a huge legal mess may ensue that could endanger the Foundation as well as the personal assets of individual board members (including non-U.S. members when they travel in that country).
A judge and jury are likely to take a dim view of board members acting against a majority vote of their members. They will probably be viewed as trying to entrench themselves to the detriment of the organization.
Furthermore, any move to repudiate Danny's election (if it happens) will have negative moral implications for active Wikipedia members. Board members that try to effect this will lose their legitimacy in the eyes of much of the Wikipedia community.
Many U.S. for-profit and nonprofit corporations operate with one or more ferociously dissident board members -- the majorities of these boards just have to learn to live with it.
en:User:A. B.
You certainly do not know how to spell my name correctly.
ReplyDeleteI have been making the point for a long time that Danny should not stand as a candidate board member, there is nothing new here. Also when you read what Jan-Bart wrote, there are sterling arguments why (ex-)personnel should not stand for this position. Arguments that Danny has so far refused to face.
What I write about Gregory Maxwell's stunt is that it fits accepted behaviour in his culture. This is not universally shared as welcome behaviour as many people consider his action SPAM. It is however understandable given an American background.
I have taken the trouble providing a favourable argument explaining Greg's action. To my amazement this is equated as being anti-US-American.. I find it exactly the opposite.
As to me and Erik, we have our own opinions and they clash with some regularity .. we can handle this quite nicely. Also, how can I be bad cop to his good cop, I do follow only the issues I am interested in ? I have no ambition in becoming a board member :)
I agreed with you that the board can, if it so chooses, accept election results. Equating this with calling the board to do so .. well, it was you who raised this as an issue :)
Thanks,
GerardM
For historial reference, this is what I wrote
ReplyDeletePlease note that am proposing a one-year waiting period for ex-employees, nothing permanent.
Thank you for your continued coverage of these elections
Jan-Bart
Jan and please tell me why a waiting period is needed?
ReplyDeleteUmmm, he did. Please go read the link that jan gave. It explains many good reasons for a waiting period.
ReplyDeleteThe one that resonated the most with me is that there are high profile employee positions within the foundation that give the employee a lot of exposure - in effect subsidizing that employee's campaign should he choose to run.
My own view is that employees rolling over to board positions (without a waiting period) contribute to entrenched bureaucracy. I seem to remember somebody pointing out a revolt at the American Chess Federation (?) over very similar circumstances.
But Danny's behavior is just out of this universe. In effect, using his inside information as a employee to accuse people of thievery, just because they got a rental car or aid for child care while on Foundation trips. Unbelievable. I wonder if it's within Danny's nature to compete on his merits, rather than unfairly cutting down others.
I seem to remember somebody pointing out a revolt at the American Chess Federation (?)
ReplyDeleteWikipedia's own User:Sam Sloan, (encyclopedia article) was elected to the USCF board on a platform that the board needed to be completely independent from the staff.