User:Peteforsyth/Heilman15

Wikipedia celebrates its 15th birthday this month. That milestone will bring a great deal of attention; Wikipedia will be praised and criticized. To most Wikipedians, both kinds of attention welcome and desirable. An enormous amount of effort in the last 15 years has earned Wikipedia a position as one of the most prominent institutions in the world, and we should expect and welcome the curiosity and reflections that come with that.

As attention turns toward Wikipedia and what its 15 year anniversary means, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of needing to demonstrate -- to ourselves and to the wider world -- that we are capable of working through problems, and that we are capable of adhering to our central values even in times of stress. In December 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees took the unprecedented step of removing one of its own members against his will. Dr. James Heilman (aka User:Doc James) was one of only three selected by a community election. This event has sparked questions and concerns among those who care about Wikipedia's future and/or the future of the Wikimedia Foundation, on various email lists, wikis, and other web sites. Most strikingly, many respected community members have publicly questioned whether the Board's expectations around transparency are aligned with the expectations of the community. See, for instance, a number of Wikimedia-L email list threads, and the English Wikipedia's Signpost article.)

One of the main tools diverse groups (like the Wikimedia movement) use to maintain focus and alignment toward shared goals is a strategic plan. As 2016 begins, we also move past the five years covered by the Strategic Plan Wikimedia developed in 2010. Back then, the Wikimedia Foundation guided the creation of that plan at considerable expense -- more than 10% of its annual budget -- in order to deeply engage the Wikimedia community. 1,000 stakeholders participated, and the work was carried out on an open wiki platform.

But the most recent words I'm aware of from the Foundation (Lila Tretikov's comments, delivered in Trustee Jimmy Wales' presence at the November Metrics and Activities Meeting), were odd and unsettling: she presented a vision that seems disconnected from the previous plan, and then she suggested that the previous plan (widely praised by the Foundation itself and by independent commentators for its inclusivity and transparency) had been developed in the wrong way, and that the organization's current efforts around strategy would in fact be more inclusive of community views, and would yield a more flexible plan.

After reading much discussion about Dr. Heilman's dismissal (see #Discussion links), it seems fairly apparent that the disagreement between him and the majority of the Board came down (at least in part) to differing beliefs around what information a Trustee is at liberty to discuss with non-Trustees. If the Wikimedia Foundation is to be a genuine steward of Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, it is of utmost importance that its policies and practices around transparency be well-tuned to widely held values and principles. But it is difficult to evaluate the disagreement between Heilman and the majority of the Board without more information and/or independent analysis.

As of January 5, 2015, Board chair Patricio Lorente published a FAQ about Heilman's dismissal, which explicitly stated: "We will not conduct any further inquiries." But important questions that may affect all Wikimedia stakeholders remain.

In the past, reports have been produced on controversial issues in the Wikimedia world, at the behest of Wikimedia personnel. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these have been highly beneficial in capturing the lessons, and helping the Wikimedia Foundation and other stakeholders incorporate an understanding of past problems into future activities.

I therefore propose, below, that a group of us:

Appoint an informal committee to collect and synthesize information that is currently spread over numerous wikis, external web sites, and email lists. If the committee is able to solicit additional information, that will be a benefit; but merely making it easier for stakeholders to evaluate what is already known would in itself be very useful.
Establish a legal fund for James Heilman. This would allow him to get expert answers about information the remaining Trustees consider confidential, but which Heilman may believe should be known by Wikimedians.

I do not believe either of these activities require consensus, as they may be pursued merely by a few individuals; but the stronger the support, the more effective both proposals would be. So I encourage Wikimedians to voice their opinions on both matters. (If there is strong opposition, of course, it should be taken into account.)

Precendents:

Review of Governance of Wikimedia UK, 2013; Compass Partnership was commissioned by WMF and Wikimedia UK.
Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence program (note, proposer was involved in producing this report)
India Education Program report

Proposal #1: Form a committee to collect and synthesize information

I propose that, before January 15, 2016 (Wikipedia's 15th birthday), we choose a committee of trusted and skilled Wikimedians, and ask them to take a focused and careful approach to inquiring into these issues, and reporting publicly to all stakeholders in Wikipedia and Wikimedia. At minimum, this would mean evaluating the information that is already available, and summarizing/synthesizing it to make it more accessible. Hopefully, the committee will be able to elicit further information as well, but we cannot be confident in that outcome ahead of time. Merely organizing existing information would be a worthwhile service to the Wikimedia community.

This should be a temporary committee, assigned only this one task.

Since the committee would have no special powers or privileges, I do not think it is essential to seek any extraordinary mandate to form it. Even if only a dozen or so Wikimedians believe it is worthwhile to form such a committee, it would be worthwhile to proceed. But of course, the stronger the consensus, the easier the committee may find it to solicit information from various parties, and the more impact its report may have. I do think James Heilman's endorsement would be especially valuable; and while an explicit statement supporting the committee's role from the Wikimedia Board of Trustees would be worthwhile, it is not needed.

Please note, this approach is intended to be compatible with various other approaches. For instance, if there should be a more formal investigation in the future, this effort might be useful in informing it.

Specific proposals:

Committee size: 5 members
Determination on whether to form committee is made by midnight UTC January 8, 2016.
Committee is formed by midnight UTC on January 14, 2016. (Those supporting the creation of the committee should have the final say on its composition.)
Deadline for a preliminary report, including an overview of how it has chosen to approach its inquiries: February 1, 2016
Deadline for final report: March 1, 2016
Committee is dissolved by March 15, 2016 (allowing 15 days for commenting as a unit on any questions about the report)

Proposal #2: Legal fund & resources for committee

It appears that one factor constraining James Heilman's commentary may be legal uncertainty. Members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees have informed him that he has a duty not to comment publicly on certain things; however, if those Trustees wish for those things to be kept confidential, they may have a conflict of interest (COI) in assessing the legality of whether they must be confidential. (This kind of COI is rather routine, but worth considering.)

James Heilman, and all who wish to assess the current disagreement, would benefit from professional legal advice about specifically what facts must be kept confidential in order to avoid legal liability.

In addition, the committee may find need for resources in order to produce a high quality report in a timely fashion. Possibilities might include: Paying an administrative assistant to manage information gathered; Professional consultation with those experienced in non-profit governance; facilitation and/or software to manage one or more community consultations. (These examples are intended merely to suggest the kinds of things the committee might consider. All decisions about how to spend funds allocated should be made by the committee itself.)

Specifics:

We should launch a crowd-funding campaign immediately, with a goal (not a hard limit) of $5,000
50% of the money raised should go to Dr. Heilman to spend on legal services at his discretion.
50% of the money raised should be entrusted to the committee to spend as it sees fit, to be reported by March 15, 2016.
Either Dr. Heilman or the committee, at his/its own discretion, may choose to pass along any part of its portion to the other party.
Any unspent funds to be donated to Creative Commons, a non-profit organization whose work has substantially supported the Wikimedia endeavor.