James Heilman removed from WMF board

[DHeyward]

The responsibility could be maintaining confidentiality or having a conflict between James's role as a board-member and other roles, since he seems to be the board-member most active with projects associated with the WMF.

Greg's instincts are often useful.

Nah, it's not like we're going to find DocJames clothing for sale on e-bay or something. Even his "break-up" note with WMF was tame compared to other break-up notes. We're so used to getting sordid details that it's disappointing when we don't. The bar for removable conduct is extremely high.

[Kelly Martin]

My own interpretation of the mealy-mouthed blather from Patricio Lorente -- and keep in mind, my brain is rich and full of wild conjecture -- is that there is something unsavory going on with one or more of the board members, or with one of the executives of the Wikimedia Foundation, and that Doc James believes that this unsavory behavior should be exposed to the wider world, while the rest of the board believes it should remain covered up. So, they ejected James, and they're hoping that he keeps his trap shut, "for the good of the movement".

I tend to agree with this analysis. Dr. Heilman is not my favorite person, to be certain, but I strongly suspect that he's not the sort of person who will keep silent when he sees something he believes to be wrong. Whether whatever it is that the Board doesn't want him to talk about actually is wrong, is a more speculative matter, but it's quite clear that there are things going on at the WMF Board level that the Board doesn't want Dr. Heilman to know about, because they don't trust him to keep his yap shut about them, and so they ejected him from the Board, to remove that risk.

Now we get to find out whether Dr. Heilman will burn the rest of his Wikipedia bridges and tell all, or will instead go toil on Wikimedia's equivalent of the Rehabilitation Project Force, in a vain effort to regain his irrevocably lost standing with the WMF. It is likely, but not certain, that this decision will amount to a determination that he is "not of the body".

[NotNormal]

Link.

Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations.

Someone able to parse that bit of PR-speak?

As far as I can see, the rest is just a big "gfy".

First, here's a link to the statement. (I would like to encourage our contributors here to provide a linked URL when you quote something from somewhere on the web.)

My own interpretation of the mealy-mouthed blather from Patricio Lorente -- and keep in mind, my brain is rich and full of wild conjecture -- is that there is something unsavory going on with one or more of the board members, or with one of the executives of the Wikimedia Foundation, and that Doc James believes that this unsavory behavior should be exposed to the wider world, while the rest of the board believes it should remain covered up. So, they ejected James, and they're hoping that he keeps his trap shut, "for the good of the movement".

I actually think the WMF saw him more as a liability. Kind of a uncontrollable asset. The only thing in that statement that is NOT fluff is "Trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality." I think your assessment in the Examiner article is spot on in that his conduct caused his ouster:

"Because Dr. Heilman (on his personal time) had been rather aggressively hunting down and exposing apparently commercially-motivated editors on medical articles on Wikipedia, one observer theorized that the WMF may have received a corporate attorney's complaint from a healthcare firm with deep pockets, which forced their hand. (For example, see this Atlantic article, regarding Heilman's investigation of Medtronic.)"

While they turned their heads to him taking a hatchet to anything that smelled like paid editing, I am leaning towards him doing something to someone who threatened the livelihood of the WMF and in turn he had to go. But, that's just my humble outspoken opinion.

[NotNormal]

Is it just me or is anyone else surprised that the media (other than Greg) has not picked up the story and ran with it? This is bigger news than Jimmy going to China.

[Kelly Martin]

Is it just me or is anyone else surprised that the media (other than Greg) has not picked up the story and ran with it? This is bigger news than Jimmy going to China.

Because it is fundamentally uninteresting. For it to be media-worthy, we'd have to be able to actually document a connection with someone more important than an obscure emergency room doctor in Canada. The media don't care about James Heilman and they don't really care about the Wikimedia Foundation. They cover Jimmy only because he's an Internet celebrity, and even then he's pretty far down on the B-list in that regard.

If we could prove, or at least provide some evidence to suggest, involvement with someone like Medtronic, then, and only then, will this become of interest to the media.

[HRIP7]

If you read between the lines of James Heilman's statement in the Signpost, where he says,

I found that communication between the staff, the executive, and the Board were not as good as I expected, and the level of secrecy was greater than I expected. I have definitely tried to improve that.

and Patricio's reference to the need

to ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective governance

and

expectations for Trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality

it's quite clear that the disagreement was around issues of confidentiality and communication. There is no indication that anything else was involved.

[Vigilant]

If you read between the lines of James Heilman's statement in the Signpost, where he says,

I found that communication between the staff, the executive, and the Board were not as good as I expected, and the level of secrecy was greater than I expected. I have definitely tried to improve that.

and Patricio's reference to the need

to ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective governance

and

expectations for Trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality

it's quite clear that the disagreement was around issues of confidentiality and communication. There is no indication that anything else was involved.

It's the big boys' version of 'logging IRC is a bannable offense'.


Nice to have such a concrete example of how the fish rots from the head down.

[eagle]

Not to completely change the subject, but this episode calls into question the role of direct election of Board Members. There are two conflicting factors in setting up the structure of a non-profit board: (a) you want Trustees who have a loyalty to the institution rather than the constituent group that elected them vs. (b) you want the various stakeholders broadly "represented" and you do not want a self-perpetuating Board that has more loyalty to the buddies that appointed them than to the institution as a whole or to the stakeholders.

Many Boards resolve this conflict by having some Trustees elected and other appointed by the Board itself. The WMF Board is probably out-of-balance (hence the 8-2 vote). What is the easiest way to increase the number of Community-elected Trustees by one?

(F) Community Founder Trustee Position. The Board may appoint Jimmy Wales as Community Founder Trustee for a three-year term. The Board may reappoint Wales as Community Founder Trustee for successive three-year terms (without a term limit). In the event that Wales is not appointed as Community Founder Trustee, the position will remain vacant, and the Board shall not fill the vacancy.

(G) Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, without counting the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the Chapters and Thematic Organizations collectively and the community.

So, the Community Founder Trustee Position converts into a Community position after Mr. Wales leaves. Without regard to what happens to Dr. Heilman, I would hope that we can all agree that the Community Founder Trustee position should be converted into a position elected directly by the Community as soon as possible. This could happen by Mr. Wales resigning. The fact that Mr. Wales would vote to remove a Community-elected Trustee shows that Mr. Wales does not respect the Community.

In the past, Mr. Wales has promised that he would never vote against the positions taken by the Community-elected trustees at a WMF Board meeting. Admittedly this was a split vote, but given Mr. Wales' promise, one would have expected him to abstain on the Heilman removal vote.

[NotNormal]

Is it just me or is anyone else surprised that the media (other than Greg) has not picked up the story and ran with it? This is bigger news than Jimmy going to China.

Because it is fundamentally uninteresting. For it to be media-worthy, we'd have to be able to actually document a connection with someone more important than an obscure emergency room doctor in Canada. The media don't care about James Heilman and they don't really care about the Wikimedia Foundation. They cover Jimmy only because he's an Internet celebrity, and even then he's pretty far down on the B-list in that regard.

If we could prove, or at least provide some evidence to suggest, involvement with someone like Medtronic, then, and only then, will this become of interest to the media.

They like to pander to Jimmy, but I am surprised because the media actually "does" seem to care about DocJames (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Press). I disagree with about 95% of his work on Wikipedia with his NPOV pushing and rogue editing, but I think the media doesn't want to cover the story because of the potential embarrassment to Wales and the WMF.

Also, if my opinion proves to be true, this would not be his first complaint (publicly) about his Wikipedia conduct.

[eagle]

PeterForsyth joins Greg on the publicizing the ouster:
linkhttp://wikistrategies.net/james-heilman-removed/[/link]

[Poetlister]

but given Mr. Wales' promise, one would have expected him to abstain on the Heilman removal vote.

Cue lots of comments on Jimbo and how well he keeps his promises.

[Kingsindian]

Since the attitude by the WMF board towards "the community" is "gfy, we don't even owe an explanation for what we did" the signs seem to point towards a need for some kind of unionization of WP editors. Like with the wikidata stuff, nobody cares for the rights of WP editors because they don't have any.

But since WP is built on the model of "digital plantation", to use Seth Finkelstein's term, it is likely to be an uphill battle, if it's even possible.

[Anthonyhcole]

Since the attitude by the WMF board towards "the community" is "gfy, we don't even owe an explanation for what we did" the signs seem to point towards a need for some kind of unionization of WP editors. Like with the wikidata stuff, nobody cares for the rights of WP editors because they don't have any.

But since WP is built on the model of "digital plantation", to use Seth Finkelstein's term, it is likely to be an uphill battle, if it's even possible.

What's needed is an English Wikipedia thematic organisation. I'd like to see the US, Canadian, UK and Australian chapters amalgamate into one seriously powerful entity to represent the interests of the makers and managers of that encyclopedia. A popular, member-elected board could stare down the WMF. Then the dog can finally start wagging the tail.

[lilburne]

Since the attitude by the WMF board towards "the community" is "gfy, we don't even owe an explanation for what we did" the signs seem to point towards a need for some kind of unionization of WP editors. Like with the wikidata stuff, nobody cares for the rights of WP editors because they don't have any.

But since WP is built on the model of "digital plantation", to use Seth Finkelstein's term, it is likely to be an uphill battle, if it's even possible.

What's needed is an English Wikipedia thematic organisation. I'd like to see the US, Canadian, UK and Australian chapters amalgamate into one seriously powerful entity to represent the interests of the makers and managers of that encyclopedia. A popular, member-elected board could stare down the WMF. Then the dog can finally start wagging the tail.

You still haven't learnt.

[thekohser]

but given Mr. Wales' promise, one would have expected him to abstain on the Heilman removal vote.

Cue lots of comments on Jimbo and how well he keeps his promises.

I think you're talking about Jimbo's promise that he would (do I have this correct?) abstain whenever his inclination to vote a certain way would put him in conflict with the "community nominated" trustees. Do we have a diff for that promise?

[Randy from Boise]

Since the attitude by the WMF board towards "the community" is "gfy, we don't even owe an explanation for what we did" the signs seem to point towards a need for some kind of unionization of WP editors. Like with the wikidata stuff, nobody cares for the rights of WP editors because they don't have any.

But since WP is built on the model of "digital plantation", to use Seth Finkelstein's term, it is likely to be an uphill battle, if it's even possible.

I actually toyed with the idea of a formal Content Writers' Union a few years ago.

I figured out that a big majority of the most solid content writers were solitary and apolitical. The idea is not necessarily a bad one, however, just one that would be problematic in its implementation.

There remains a very real need to address the uneven power relationship between San Francisco/WMF on the one hand and the people who actually write and curate the encyclopedia on the other.


RfB

[Kingsindian]

I actually toyed with the idea of a formal Content Writers' Union a few years ago.

I figured out that a big majority of the most solid content writers were solitary and apolitical. The idea is not necessarily a bad one, however, just one that would be problematic in its implementation.

There remains a very real need to address the uneven power relationship between San Francisco/WMF on the one hand and the people who actually write and curate the encyclopedia on the other.


RfB

Wikipedia really has few or no broad based structures. One either needs charismatic individuals or already existing groups to organise around. Wikiprojects could be one such structure. Many are narrowly focused on specific topics. Mailing lists like GGTF could be another - they have a rather large membership. One would need a rather eclectic and broad platform to get them together. It would also need diverse information / propaganda organs discussing various issues. I don't know if the Signpost by itself is up to the job.

This is just spitballing, I know next to nothing about any sort of organizing.

[Kelly Martin]

What's needed is an English Wikipedia thematic organisation. I'd like to see the US, Canadian, UK and Australian chapters amalgamate into one seriously powerful entity to represent the interests of the makers and managers of that encyclopedia. A popular, member-elected board could stare down the WMF. Then the dog can finally start wagging the tail.

I have long argued that the editors of the English Wikipedia should form its own governing body independent of the WMF and of Jimbo. The WMF has never had the interests of editors at heart.

But it will never happen; most of the editors cannot be bothered, and the ones who can will never agree on a structure or on leaders.

[Vigilant]

What's needed is an English Wikipedia thematic organisation. I'd like to see the US, Canadian, UK and Australian chapters amalgamate into one seriously powerful entity to represent the interests of the makers and managers of that encyclopedia. A popular, member-elected board could stare down the WMF. Then the dog can finally start wagging the tail.

I have long argued that the editors of the English Wikipedia should form its own governing body independent of the WMF and of Jimbo. The WMF has never had the interests of editors at heart.

But it will never happen; most of the editors cannot be bothered, and the ones who can will never agree on a structure or on leaders.

There's another section of en.wp 'power users' who are quislings hoping for a WMF paid position.

[Poetlister]

But it will never happen; most of the editors cannot be bothered, and the ones who can will never agree on a structure or on leaders.

You just have a !vote and let a bureaucrat decide the consensus on who's won.

[Kingsindian]

Link

Dear all

I have been accused of three things:


1.

Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the
board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees.
I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
consider it unfounded.



1.

Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have
made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community
members and used independent judgement.



1.

Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
asked by other board members at any time before its publication to produce
a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put together a
few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by myself
here
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80502.html
I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
purpose of producing such a statement.


I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
movement and the WMF.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
http://www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

[Midsize Jake]

He could have just gone with something much shorter, like, say, "specifics are overrated," and saved himself a lot of typing.

[Zoloft]

He could have just gone with something much shorter, like, say, "specifics are overrated," and saved himself a lot of typing.

Sounds like Dr. Heilman tried to open up the Board a bit, enhance communications, and they kicked him for it.

[thekohser]

He could have just gone with something much shorter, like, say, "specifics are overrated," and saved himself a lot of typing.

Sounds like Dr. Heilman tried to open up the Board a bit, enhance communications, and they kicked him for it.

Well, also babbling to WMF staff about WMF trustee discussions or perspectives.

[Earthy Astringent]

I've been reading the links Kohs posted about the boards composition and it sure looks like the "power" is in the hands of the chapters/thematics. Is this a "one organization one vote" situation, or is there a complex formula for how much each organization's vote is worth?

Do they form voting blocs ala FIFA?

[Moral Hazard]

Link

I have been accused of:

• 1. Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees. I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I consider it unfounded.
  2. Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community members and used independent judgement.

—James Heilman

babbling to WMF staff about WMF trustee discussions or perspectives.

Boards typically have subcommittees dealing with personnel issues, which are often quite delicate in not-for-profits, because the board should not undermine the CEO and sap the authority of human resources (HR).

A wish to have more staff input should normally be made by the board as a whole or through its personnel subcommittee, rather than through the cowboy actions of a single board-member. In Sweden and Germany, staff have many representatives on boards of corporations, for example.

[Randy from Boise]

So much for any hope that three time Funds Dissemination Committee Chair (and only Board member to support Heilman) Dariusz Jemielniak would contribute something beyond a wall of vacuous blather...

voted in the minority for the recent resolution. However, I also want to be clear that I support the outcome and the majority decision, and look forward to a new community Trustee. I hope that, even though you may continue to have questions, you will too.

From my own perspective, the issue of "trust" had nothing to do with James’ personal integrity. The Board however must ensure that members follow their duties and obligations in their roles as Trustees. My personal (not organizational) trust in James is 100%, in the sense that I would buy a car from him, and leave him the keys to my house without hesitation. James is an exceptional individual and an amazing Wikipedian. I feel privileged to know him.

Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.

I do want to comment on one point very important to me: This decision does not signal a shift on the Board’s attitude towards community representation, and does not alter our commitment to an active role for the community representatives on the Board. I also want to be clear that the Board decision was not based on a difference of opinion about direction or strategy.

At this stage, I think we basically need to move on. The Board is committed to community-nominated membership, and we are actively working with the most recent Election Committee on a plan to fill the open community-selected seat . We expect James to stay in the movement and continue to do the amazing things he is well known for. Until recently, I was also a member of the community, watching the Board’s decisions. I understand the desire to have more details. At the same time, I genuinely ask for you to assume good faith from the Board.

I do, however, agree that the Foundation and the Board can be better at communicating, and be more open. While we're not there yet, I am optimistic about the direction of the change, and I know that 2016 will bring more open community discussions around both strategy and our annual planning in consultation with the movement.

I join my colleagues in wishing my friend, James, the absolute best in his next ventures. I am excited that he plans to remain an active member of our movement, and I look forward to seeing him on-wiki and at community gatherings.

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_ ... My_removal[/link]

The WP Board of Trustees — transparent as mud.

RfB

[Biblio]

...I genuinely ask for you to assume good faith from the Board.

Regardless of the intention behind this comment, I really couldn't help but read it as: "Look, these questions are becoming very uncomfortable for us, so just accept our decision by faith and be quiet."

[eagle]

An easy first step would be to open Board meetings to allow interested people to attend as audience members. Folks might even want to live tweet or live blog from the meetings. Of course, the Board would reserve the right to go into executive session to discuss personnel and pending contracts, but I think that having spectators in the room would change the tenor of the debate.

When the staff makes presentations to the Board on the progress of various projects, those presentations should also be posted on meta. There is no reason why the community should not know specifically what the WMF is doing with their money.

And most of all, to gain greater clarity, Mr. Wales' Board seat should be converted into a community-elected seat. (I have no objections to Mr. Wales running for a community-elected seat subject to the same term limits as all other community-elected Trustees.)

Imagine a world where all interested people could get a clear idea of what the WMF Board was doing instead of everyone wasting their time at Jimbotalk. For the price of a cup of coffee, community members would actually get a cup of coffee instead of reading tea leaves in a sea of mud.

[Moral Hazard]

Having closed board meetings is the only way to get serious people to consider serving.
What percentage of people at Wikipedia discussions are obsessive and aggressive jerks? 20%? They are the ones who would show up at board meetings.

[Kelly Martin]

...I genuinely ask for you to assume good faith from the Board.

Regardless of the intention behind this comment, I really couldn't help but read it as: "Look, these questions are becoming very uncomfortable for us, so just accept our decision by faith and be quiet."

Any time you have to beg for the assumption of good faith is an indication that you probably do not deserve it.

[tarantino]

...I genuinely ask for you to assume good faith from the Board.

Regardless of the intention behind this comment, I really couldn't help but read it as: "Look, these questions are becoming very uncomfortable for us, so just accept our decision by faith and be quiet."

Dariusz is a member here, though he was last active when we were talking about his book more than a year ago.

[Kingsindian]

Link to thread about his book.

I wasn't aware of this. I had earlier independently read one chapter, on bureaucracy, in the book and found it decent. He comes off as a bit thin skinned in the thread, not responding well to clueful criticism.

[Randy from Boise]

Any time you have to beg for the assumption of good faith is an indication that you probably do not deserve it.

Now immortalized on my User Page as "Chicago Kelly's Rule."

RfB

[Biblio]

Any time you have to beg for the assumption of good faith is an indication that you probably do not deserve it.

Now immortalized on my User Page as "Chicago Kelly's Rule."

RfB

I mean, really, don't I deserve at least a little credit? I know I had no direct part in the formulation of this rule, but at least I wrote the (very thoughtful!) analyzation of Dariusz's statement, which in turn presumably motivated the creation of said rule...

[Sparky]

Any time you have to beg for the assumption of good faith is an indication that you probably do not deserve it.

Now immortalized on my User Page as "Chicago Kelly's Rule."

RfB

I mean, really, don't I deserve at least a little credit? I know I had no direct part in the formulation of this rule, but at least I wrote the (very thoughtful!) analyzation of Dariusz's statement, which in turn presumably motivated the creation of said rule...

1st Corollary to Chicago Kelly's Rule: Any time you have to beg for a little credit...

[Poetlister]

1st Corollary to Chicago Kelly's Rule: Any time you have to beg for a little credit...

I think that deserves to be a rule in its own right, to be known as Biblio's Sparky's rule.

[NotNormal]

I think you all drank the Kool-Aid. Are you surprised with the secrecy of the WMF? Are you surprised the way the bylaws are set up to give them ultimate power? Are you surprised that community representation is only a facade? I'm reading Jimbo's talk page and people are "demanding" answers the same way people were when J.F.K. was shot. Not going to happen. Anything you assume about the WMF is likely true and even if they did admit it, nothing would change. Would all say "ah ha" and then go back to normal discussions like.......

............anyone who is a doctor and uses "Wikipedian" in their signature next to "M.D." has something wrong going on inside their brain. Just saying!

[Randy from Boise]

I think you all drank the Kool-Aid. Are you surprised with the secrecy of the WMF? Are you surprised the way the bylaws are set up to give them ultimate power? Are you surprised that community representation is only a facade? I'm reading Jimbo's talk page and people are "demanding" answers the same way people were when J.F.K. was shot. Not going to happen. Anything you assume about the WMF is likely true and even if they did admit it, nothing would change. * * *

Forcefully asking legitimate questions and actually expecting straight answers from those seemingly congenitally unable to give them are two different things.

RfB

[Earthy Astringent]

Anytime I see NOTBURO I ask myself, what do these assholes have against burritos?

[milowent]

Nothing says transparency and openness more than the unexplained removal of a board member from a major 501c3.

Exactly. Non-profit boards should be strongly cautioned against acting rashly like this; Board counsel (whoever that is) failed here. Do they have the legal power to remove gadflies from their board? Yes. But as one of the few community-elected Board members, this should only be done when there are strong reasons that can be shown to the public. If six of the Board members were like-minded as Doc, he wouldn't be a gadfly, he'd be the majority.

No one has articulated a concrete reason for his removal - its all the typical bullshit that you see when an disliked outsider gets tossed off a board. And they usually get away with it.

If would be awesome if someone did a stealth audio recording of the meeting (not that uncommon, really, if someone expects shenanigans) and leaked it. Well actually, it would probably be boring as hell, and just prove they planned in advance to remove him.

[thekohser]

Personally, it's becoming clear to me that Heilman's major offense was that he had received (with welcome) complaints from staff members of the WMF, regarding their displeasure with executive leadership and brand management of the WMF, which could include complaints about Lila Tretikov and/or key board members (I'm looking at you, Jimbo). The board probably asked Heilman to stop welcoming and acting upon these calls for help from WMF staff, and Heilman (seeing it as his duty to serve the ideals of "free information") refused. Thus, his ouster.

[Kumioko]

Personally, it's becoming clear to me that Heilman's major offense was that he had received (with welcome) complaints from staff members of the WMF, regarding their displeasure with executive leadership and brand management of the WMF, which could include complaints about Lila Tretikov and/or key board members (I'm looking at you, Jimbo). The board probably asked Heilman to stop welcoming and acting upon these calls for help from WMF staff, and Heilman (seeing it as his duty to serve the ideals of "free information") refused. Thus, his ouster.

I think this is probably a very accurate guess given that the board in the past has been largely a do nothing body. Personally I hope the community reelects him.

[milowent]

Personally, it's becoming clear to me that Heilman's major offense was that he had received (with welcome) complaints from staff members of the WMF, regarding their displeasure with executive leadership and brand management of the WMF, which could include complaints about Lila Tretikov and/or key board members (I'm looking at you, Jimbo). The board probably asked Heilman to stop welcoming and acting upon these calls for help from WMF staff, and Heilman (seeing it as his duty to serve the ideals of "free information") refused. Thus, his ouster.

how dare he actually perform the fiduciary duty of a board member to try to knowledgeable and informed about the operations of the organization, instead of just accepting presentations pre-approved by the CEO (or executive director here)!

As best I can tell, the Board only had three board meetings since his appointment in July. Sept 14, Nov 17, and Dec 8 (or 9?). He was removed on Dec 28, and it doesn't look like the Board has ever had two meetings in one month. Holding a Board meeting between Christmas and New Years' is also unusual. So no doubt the sole purpose of this meeting was to remove Doc.

[Kingsindian]

I do want to comment on one point very important to me: This decision does not signal a shift on the Board’s attitude towards community representation, and does not alter our commitment to an active role for the community representatives on the Board.

Totally agree with this.

Attitude before: gfy
Attitude after: gfy

[Randy from Boise]

Personally, it's becoming clear to me that Heilman's major offense was that he had received (with welcome) complaints from staff members of the WMF, regarding their displeasure with executive leadership and brand management of the WMF, which could include complaints about Lila Tretikov and/or key board members (I'm looking at you, Jimbo). The board probably asked Heilman to stop welcoming and acting upon these calls for help from WMF staff, and Heilman (seeing it as his duty to serve the ideals of "free information") refused. Thus, his ouster.

I'm not 100% sure of this interpretation, but it seems evident that Heilman's direct contact with WMF staffers is at the root of his purge. How something like that is grounds for removal boggles the mind, but we're talking about an insular and paranoid little group of insiders intent upon defending their turf, so there are no doubt Alice in Wonderland norms and values at play here.

The power relationship and lack of room for independent opinion and action of the so-called "elected Community members" of the Board vis a vis the clique around Jimmy Wales is becoming more and more clear. Dr. Heilman's refusal to provide specifics is unhelpful, but at least he has hinted enough that we can suss out what happened in broad outlines.

RfB

[HRIP7]

The question is, what did staff complain about and why. Glassdoor has some interesting comments, by the way, but it's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

[Kingsindian]

Most management have no prior management experience. They become management material because they could be loud, male, white or all of the above. So management is a bit tricky, you'll be riding their first big bumps with them. They struggle a lot and very painful to watch. Even more painful for your career.

Here's a quote from the link Andreas gave. The full text is worth reading.

[Vigilant]

I'm wondering what Wil Sinclair makes of all of these comments. Wil?

The Executive Leadership is really lacking. The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or so. She completely abandons the previous strategy and then does nothing to actually follow through on the strategy. In short, there is no strategy – only organizational confusion. It is a massive failure in leadership.

We need a new Executive Director. Most C-Level executives have fled. We will not be able to attract top talent until there is new leadership at the very top.

Many of these reviews are from current employees during 2015...

[tarantino]

Terry Chay, former director of features engineering, talks about job churning at the foundation on Quora.