As you may have heard, the Drupal Association has decided, under the flag of increased efficiencies, to completely shift the organizational structure of the Drupal Association. These changes include disbanding the DA's General Assembly, moving all operations from the original organization (VZW - a Belgian nonprofit) to the 501(c)3 that VZW setup to help finance DrupalCons (DrupalCon, Inc or DCI), appointing a new board, etc.
I have a lot of questions about this transition, and given the opaque nature of the DA Board's dealings, I'm sure that many other members of the community do as well. I'll post my questions in the comments, and I invite anyone else with questions to do so as well. Some questions may be harsh, but I'll try to keep it respectful to the individuals involved, and I hope you'll ask some respectful questions as well.
Comments
Round one
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but here are a few questions I have for the DA Board: (note, I'm sure I may have some things wrong, and some things may be skewed more than some would like, but this was meant simply to get the conversation moving)
Why were the minutes that led to the creation of DCI, as well as to DrupalCon Chicago, "cleaned" to remove reference to both of these actions, and whose decision was it? Are there minutes/notes from the meetings that led to this "cleaning" that you could share?
In Jacob's post titled Increased Efficiencies at the Drupal Association he said "The Board of Drupal VZW has decided to assign the majority of its functions to the U.S. nonprofit, which it believes is better positioned to further its charitable mission moving forward." However, the Drupal Association's (VZW) statutes require a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly, which Robert Douglass and Jeff Eaton report as taking place. So:
- which is it? did the GA vote for this change or did the board vote for it?
- when did this vote occur?
- if it was after this announcement, doesn't that go against VZW's statutes (i.e. did you present it to the GA as a "fait accompli", leaving them with little real choice?)?
You maintain that DCI is a "new" organization and connected but mostly unrelated to VZW. Yet, these two organizations have shared every single resource, including, but not limited to, Annual Reports, Staff (in that DCI staff sent emails representing themselves as working for the Drupal Association, i.e. VZW), printing/materials, e-mail lists and member info, etc. So, how exactly are they separate orgs?
Who was nominated for the board? What were the final votes on each nominee?
What were the initial recommendations of the nominating committee?
Who controls DCI? Who elected the current DCI board?
What controls are in place to ensure that no self-dealing or private inurement is allowed on the board?
What accountability does the board have to its members and funders?
Other than the community seats, how can those of us who are not "insiders" affect the composition of the board?
What does DCI plan to do with the community's money (I'm guessing this is now somewhere in the $1.5m-$2.5m range)?
Where are DCI's meeting dates, minutes, and votes from before this transition?
Where are DCI's governing documents? Currently the only documents listed are official filings, like the Conflict-of-Interest policy and 990 forms.
Why are DCI's votes conducted in secret? What risk does opening them to the public view (not necessarily comment) pose to the organization?
Were any recommendations discarded, ignored, or bypassed in any way? If so, can you please share the reasons?
Given that the current person in charge of coming up with the governance plan for the "new DA" forced a special vote on DrupalCon Chicago (i.e. she debated on an issue, forced a change in how the voting would occur, voted, & subsequently her company received a $45k contract for work related to that vote), were there any internal objections/concerns raised to her remaining on the board and/or leading DCI's governance efforts? What was the response to these objections/concerns?
Are you concerned that vote manipulation and self-dealing on the DA board will harm the community?
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Thank you for your questions
Alex,
You have asked a number of questions, most that will take time to respond to. Unfortunately your tone and language contains accusations about misconduct and is, once again, directed towards an individual on the board. Additionally in email conversations to staff members you have taken a very defensive tone, have threatened legal action, and directly stated that you "[You] will do everything in [your] power to see that it fails" ("it" refers to the Association). Please realize that your aggressive tone and nature makes it more difficult for us and others to work with you.
Tone aside you have valid questions that do deserve an answer, many have already been answered on the Association's website. I highly appreciate your need for increased transparency and I do agree that as an organization we need to continue to work towards opening up our operations. Help us organize our information so that you can better find the information. I and/or others on the board or advisory board will take the time to respond to your questions in this thread. However, you will need to give us time as you posted quite a large list. I am also open to taking time out of my day to host an open conference call so that we can discuss these issues directly. We'll record it and post it for others.
Most of your questions relate to an increase in transparency, which is something that the Association and the people working with the Association have been working on for some time. Transparency can mean a lot of things but I would like to know what it means to you.
What specific steps can we take to increase our transparency so that the questions you have asked here could have been more easily answered? What would you change/implement at the Association to increase our transparency?
-Jacob Redding
-Jacob Redding
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step
Jacob-
I'm going to go ahead and ignore (for now) the non-germane/ad-hominem aspects of your reply (yes, the self dealing on the board was done by an individual, thus the focus on them, and no need to link when it's two topics down on the DA group), and ask you to please focus not on my "tone" but on the substance of my questions. If you really can't get over the tone I will ask someone to rewrite my questions. So, let's make this simple. You ask above how you can become more transparent (and that is but part of the problem), you can do so by answering questions open and honestly. I'll take three important ones from above, if you really care about honesty and transparency you can start to restore my faith by answering them fully and openly. So, here we go:
1 - This is one I have been asking you (and Dries) to become transparent about for months now (ever since I forced you to release the minutes). I know it's a two-part question, but I want to know why repeated requests have been ignored up until now.
2 - This one should be easy, since on some level I am really just asking you whether you misspoke (and if not, I'd like some clarity):
3 - I have been hearing rumors, and I am asking you to squash them. Again, if you did this in the open, it wouldn't be a question:
There are no accusations in those three questions, just statements of fact and legitimate questions. You have asked me to ask questions & have said you want to be more transparent, so I look forward to your open and honest response to these three questions.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Given that the current person
I'd like to provide some context so that members of the community don't come to believe the narrative that Alex has imagined.
Cary Gordon ran as the events manager for the board with the intent of transitioning how Drupalcons were selected, and executed. The first part of his plan was to move to long term planning away from the annual selection process. The second was to transition his role, as events manager, to a full time replacement, a job now done by Neil Kent.
The board selected Cary to the new position and gave him wide latitude to execute his plan. As part of his plan he researched future Drupalcon locations, and researched local teams to ensure that multiple Drupalcons were selected in a row to reduce the chaos and expense of short term planning. The board trusted Cary to do the job and expected him to put forward motions to make this happen.
As it got closer to Drupalcon Paris, I was actively involved in organizing the Drupalcon San Francisco proposal and promotion activities. I felt it was necessary that the board make a decision about the next Drupalcon North America prior to the upcoming european Drupalcon. I approached the President of the board to have a board meeting, and to have this discussion added to the agenda. As Cary was the event manager, he proposed the motion, if I recall correctly. The board voted and it was decided to have Drupalcon San Francisco in 2010, and Drupalcon Chicago in 2011. While the transition from an Olympic style bidding process to multi-year plan was not as smooth from a timing perspective as we all wanted, we entrusted Cary to do the research and make a recommendation to the board. He did so, and the board accepted his motion. The recommendation was Cary's, the decision was the board, and the pushing to get the motion passed was mine, but it was the president who decides when to have board meetings, and what's on the agenda.
As for the allocation of the community's financial resources to a particular firm, I was also the director pushing for this. The experience of running Drupalcon Boston, and watching Development Seed run Drupalcon DC lead me to the conclusion that it was appropriate to make contributing to Drupalcon sustainable by hiring firms with expertise and motivation to get some components of the conference completed as paid work. At the time this was very controversial, but I felt given the budgets and the demands being placed on volunteers it was appropriate. By this time, the board had entrusted two people with the responsibility for financial execution of Drupalcon, the executive director, and the events manager for the board. I worked with both to ensure the local organizing committee had latitude to hire the firms it felt was most capable of completing the job.
I think it's reasonable to question the decisions made, and to ask what the processes were in making those decisions. The organization was in a transition of taking over full responsibility for the conferences from a volunteer group, and it's to be expected that not all processes were perfect. But it's also important to recognize that when appointed representatives make business decisions it is their decision to be made. If you don't like the decision, that's not grounds to imagine undue influences are the only possible way that decision could have happened.
For almost a year, I've sat back and stayed quiet while this imaginary conspiracy has been spun both on Drupal.org and through private back channels. The decisions to select Drupalcon San Francisco and Chicago were ultimately pushed forward by me, but it was also done in a way that was completely consistent with the processes of the Drupal association. The decision to hire local firms to do paid work was also pushed forward by me, and I was consulted in the decisions to hire firms for both Drupalcon San Francisco and Chicago and felt that both decisions were ultimately the correct decisions, but could have have had more transparent decision making and oversight. The association has since taken that feedback and significantly restructured itself to have better governance. There are now standing committees to address these concerns going forward.
Alex, if you want to blame someone, blame me. Blame Cary. Blame Jacob. We made imperfect decisions in what we felt were the best interests of the community. Perhaps you've decided not to go after me because we are friends and drinking buddies, or because we've known each other for seven years. Maybe that's given me the benefit of the doubt in your eyes. Perhaps you would have given Tiffany the benefit if you'd ever met her or shared a drink.
That's what Drupalcon has always been about, bringing people together to form bonds that let us trust each other. In your pursuit of justice for the community, keep in mind what's so special about the community in the first place.
Kieran
Whose imagination?
Kieran- when we discussed Jacob's (widely circulated, ultimately published in part by me) e-mail stating that the Chicago board members had forced the vote to bring DrupalCon to their city your response was (if I remember correctly) that you believed it should have remained a secret (if you don't know the e-mail I'm talking about, let me know and I'll forward it, or just search for jacob's e-mail and the word "collusion"). But honestly, I'm not as concerned with the vote (even though it was clearly a CoI) as I am about what happened next. It's not a conspiracy to say that Palantir got paid $45k in advance of performing most of the work of DrupalCon, in the form of a sponsorship (which must be paid in full in order to be listed), and it's not out of line to ask to see proof that you followed the organization's own rules about handling the fact that the an owner and employee of that company voted to bring the event to their city to begin with.
With regards to trust, I hope you don't take this personally, but I don't trust any group of people. When it comes to people I put my faith in rules and fair/open processes (i.e. open governance, democracy, etc), not in individuals. Trust is a non-starter when over $1m of our money is on the table and people from two companies control everything. Acquia + Palantir = a majority on the board before the transition, right? (Kieran, Angie, Dries from Acquia & Tiffany + Larry from Palantir = 5 of 8 or 9 board seats)
When I originally brought my concerns about the contract to your attention, your response (11/24/10) was "Hi Alex, I'll do some research. I agree that there should be more transparency and that the DA should have explicitly put this job out for open bid." So- was it bid? If so, can you please just tell me who was given even an implicit chance to bid on this job?
I believe in openness, the DA is secret. I believe in efficiency, the DA doesn't do much with all that money it takes from the community. I believe in fairness, the DA is controlled by very few companies, representing a very narrow set of interests. I believe in Democracy, the DA is not elected by the community, and doesn't even have to act on the recommendations of its own nominating committee. When I look at these core values, and I look at the DA, I see a fundamental mismatch. I'm really not sure how I can reconcile all of the cognitive dissonance required to be part of an amazingly open and vibrant community where almost all of the key decisions can be decided in secret and issued by fiat.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Response to your questions
Alex,
You have quite a lot of questions so please give me and others time to respond. I've separated your questions into categories so that I can best respond to what I believe is the underlying issue.
Accountability
When I read your emails, posts, and speak to you in person to me it is clear that we, as an organization, have failed to gain your trust. This concerns me. In order to be an effective and successful non-profit we must have the trust of our members, donors, sponsors, and volunteers. Let me outline what we have done to ensure that we have built-in accountability and how we are continuing to build trust with everyone in our community.
Moving operations to a U.S. 501c3
There were many reasons why the move to a U.S 501c3 was a good move for the Drupal Community. One of those reasons (aside from tax savings) was accountability. U.S. 501c3s non-profits are required by law to release their financials once per year (IRS form 990). Additionally organizations such as Charity Navigator and Guidestar are setup to monitor 501c3s. This immediately added two new levels of forced accountability previously not required of Drupal VZW.
Annual Reports
In 2011 we released the first annual report and are committed to doing so every year.
Conducting an Audit
After we began to hire our first employees in 2010/2011 we recognized that within the next few years we should conduct an official audit of our operations to build trust with our sponsors. We hope to do this in the first half of 2012.
Town Hall Meetings
Town Hall meetings began early this year as an experiment to see if it would increase community participation in the organization. They have definitely picked up and been a good way of listening to the community and providing an opportunity to participate in the organization. We plan to do these every two months in 2012 and will increase them if necessary.
Renewing our structure
Explained in a previous post the Association underwent a major shift to its governance structure. This was done to increase participation, clarify roles, build a diverse board, and also provide the community a stronger way to participate in the governance and decision making of the organization. At large board members are nominated by and selected by the community.
Meeting minutes
We record meeting minutes at every meeting and earlier this year we created a plan to make all of these meeting minutes public. Although later in this response you'll see that we have failed to fully live up to this expectation and we need to do better. Being public about our meeting is very much part of our plan.
Committees
As a part of the restructuring a series of committees were created. The governance committee, nominating committee and conflict of interest committee were the committees created. As described in the governance docs an audit committee, finance committee, and compensation committee are also being formed. Additional committees will be created as necessary to provide the proper level of oversight and governance.
There are just a few of the ways that we are working to increase our accountability and continue to build trust with the community. Of course we are an evolving organization and if there is more we can do please attend a town hall, submit a suggestion via the contact form, or just speak up in this group.
Let me answer your questions directly:
https://association.drupal.org/about/990
https://association.drupal.org/about/governance
New board members will sign an agreement that states they will support the organization, work on the behalf of the organization, and, amongst other things, disclose any potential conflicts of interest. This is new to our organization but is part of the changes recommended by the governance committee.
This is a very broad question but we are, of course, accountable to our members and sponsors. The items outlined above are a good first start for us but we will constantly learn and adjust. For example, when you stopped funding the organization several months ago I spoke with you directly to learn why and worked with you to find a path to rebuilding that trust. In the interim period I gave you options on how to continue to support the Drupal Community without being a member or a sponsor of the Association.
My goal is to never force someone to support us. I want our members and sponsors to support us because they believe in our work and want to be involved.
In 2009 I released one of the first budgets for Drupal VZW, which was extended for 2010. The annual reports outlines how these funds were spent. In Q1, 2011 we will release the Annual report outlining how the funds were spent in 2011. We are currently defining our 2012 plans after doing a review of our 2011 activities, once it is complete and approved we'll post it as we did our 2009 budget.
Of course!
Read the over 140 comments on your previous post for how the organization and community has responded to your previous allegations.
Meeting Minutes
Both the Drupal Association and Drupal VZW have meeting minutes for every board and General Assembly meeting. However, in the beginning when the board members were new it was not clearly understood what exactly meeting minutes were or how they should be posted. There was a learning curve involved and early meeting minutes were transcripts of the voice or IRC meetings. Early this year a project was undertaken to organize all of the meeting minutes and post them publicly. They were released shortly after your previous post.
In July of this year Angela Byron shifted away from several of her secretarial duties and the creation of meeting minutes was put onto the members of the group. Subsequently meeting minutes moved from nodes on http://association.drupal.org to Google Docs, which is why they do not appear on a.d.o.
You're correct that the meeting minutes, like the others, should be public. Early next week I'll be sure that the links to the Google Docs are published on a.d.o so that they can be easily found.
See above.
You also asked:
Since you brought this to our attention in this thread I did some investigating over the past week. I'll answer this question in a follow-up response.
I have explained this in depth in this post. It explains the origins and history of the two organizations. https://association.drupal.org/node/1389
To summarize. We agree it was confusing and have acted to eliminate the confusion and shift operations directly to DrupalCon Inc. now known as the Drupal Association.
Board Composition
You asked a number of questions that relate directly to the new structure. If you haven't already I suggest that you read George De Met's post about the new structure, particularly the attachment. The recommendations were created by a Governance committee that worked for the better part of the year to devise a new structure that would best reflect and support the Drupal Community. You can read the background history of this work in Kieran's post, which includes the report provided to the Association by two outside non-profit and leadership consultants.
To directly answer your questions
These questions are best answered by the nomination committee. A change to the board election process included a process change from all self-nominated individuals to a nomination committee that sought out individuals.
Like all non-profits the board bears ultimate responsibility for the organization. I suggest that the word controls really means what the organization does. My response is that the community controls the Drupal Association. Through reading comments, participating in the community, hosting Town halls, and providing methods for the community to get involved in and influence the organization the community does control the organization. This thread is an example of us listening to and responding to the community.
As explained in the posts by George De. Met, Kieran, and Dries (and here) as well as posted in the about/governance section the current board is selected through a nomination process that starts with the nomination committee. Nomination committee members are selected for their commitment to the community, the organization, their expertise, and their own personal networks. That committee reviews the composition of the board for skill set, diversity, experience, community representation and other elements. They then use a variety of tools to suggest new candidates for the board and present them to the board on a slate. The slate is then voted on by the current board.
A more direct answer is: The nomination committee provided a slate of board members and the current board ratified those suggestions.
I don't believe that the board perceives they are operating in secret. Suggestions on how they can be open are welcome and there have been many discussions on how this can best be done.
What would need to change for you to not see these meetings are operating in secret?
Another great question for the nomination committee. They are the ones in charge of suggesting new board members. I will say that this is one of the many ways that you can affect the composition.
The members of that committee listen to the community by attending the Town Hall meetings, hosting sessions/meetings at DrupalCon, reviewing Twitter/Facebooks/Blog posts, and monitoring this group.
As the Executive Director I am privy to the conversations between the nomination committee and the board. Considering that the board is my boss I appreciate the ability to offer feedback on the new board suggestions. I will only speak to my recommendations and feedback during that process.
I don't feel as though any recommendations were discarded, ignored, or bypassed. However, I did feel that two of the board candidates were not a good fit for the board at this time in our organization. I made my recommendations after reviewing the suggested candidates and seeking feedback from the candidates' coworkers, colleagues, and/or employers. In short I did a reference check and my own independent research. Although the individuals suggested were great candidates and would be excellent board members for our organization in 2-3 years I did not think they were a great fit at this point in time. That was my feedback.
Similar to hiring practices I am going to respect the individual's right to privacy and not discuss my feedback on the candidates including my reasons as to why.
Wrapping this up
You continue to be very concerned about the direction and governance of the organization. You have many very valid concerns and we continue to listen to you and respond to your questions and concerns. I agree with you that our communication can improve considerably and we are looking for ways to do this. Currently we have someone helping us with organizing the information on the Association's website and we need to continue to release more information and organize it so that it can be found quickly instead of digging through blog posts or attachments.
I would like to work with you to address your concerns and help us become a better organization. We have a lot of great resources that can do an immense amount of good for our community and Open Source. However, we must be united and work together to accomplish those goals. I'll commit to working with you to release more information and become a more transparent organization. It would be appreciated if you could please commit to working with us and understanding the varying competing interests we have by providing suggestions instead of allegations. When you allege wrongdoing and threaten legal action it puts others on edge and makes it more difficult for us to move forward. I'm sure you can understand why this is.
-Jacob Redding
Moar Response
Excellent. Obviously something I've been pushing for, but I also want to make sure that the audit will be conducted by someone independent from the board, that it will look at the budgets/dealings from 2010/2011, and that it will also include a "periodic review" (as spelled out in the current Conflict of Interest policy) to ensure that the deals with Chicago were, to quote from your policy, "reasonable, based on competent
survey information, and the result of arm’s length bargaining." (I take survey information to mean some form of bidding, or that you at least reached out to other local Drupal firms and/or individuals).
I do not think the word "control" means what you think it means (you are probably thinking of the word "advise"). For example, if the nominating committee "controlled" the process of who was selected for the next board then we'd have two more board members. Instead, they advised and you decided what was best. Again: that's "advising" not "controlling". The real answer appears to be Dries/Angie/You (or was it Tiffany instead of you?), which is to say Acquia had super majority control over the organization.
And as Angie points out below, this is actually not true. Instead, the nominating committee made recommendations, and you chose to pick and choose which ones you'd listen to. Ain't Oligarchic Dictatorship grand?
This is not similar to hiring practices, and you should save me the trouble of plying the information from someone via beer and actually embrace openness/transparency in action, rather than via nice-sounding (but ultimately empty) words. This information needs to become public, and your attempts at secrecy cannot last forever. Transparency means you don't get to keep secrets from us- that is the point, and until you realize that you cannot expect that I, or anyone else skeptical of the current DA's motives or operations, will trust you.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
8-25 Meeting Minutes
Alex,
In the this post you pointed out that the meeting minutes from August 25, 2009 seems to have been "cleaned" to remove references to Chicago. Due to an unfortunate mistake you are correct, the references to Chicago were accidentally removed. I discussed this with the person responsible and it was an honest mistake.
You can see the revision information from that node here:
https://skitch.com/jredding/ggqiy/revisions-for-2009-08-25-board-minutes...
Angela Byron (webchick) edited the node to remove the IRC transcript and to modify some of the formatting. Unfortunately in doing so she accidentally removed the reference to Chicago.
As you can see from the revision information Annie (an Association employee) posted the original node in May of 2011, months before you requested the meeting minutes. As explained in several blog posts the reason for the delay in posting the meeting minutes is because instead of having meeting minutes what was taken were transcripts of the meetings. Those transcripts were boiled down to meeting minutes by Annie and supervised by me.
The several revisions to that node were modifications to grammar and spelling. I have posted a PDF of the original node and have reverted that node to the revision just before Angie's.
I agree that this is really unfortunate but I am confident that it was not intentional and was a result of an honest mistake.
Why not post the full transcripts?
There is a reason we don't post the full transcripts and it is one that we are working on improving going forward. The board is ultimately responsible for the organization and when they go on record in meeting minutes those are legal documents that guide the organization. The members of the board needs the ability to speak candidly and openly about decisions within the organization. Providing the board members a private space to share their thoughts and opinions helps to build consensus. Once consensus is reached it is recorded in meeting minutes and released as the official direction of the organization.
In this manner the board operates and communicates as a team.
At the time of this meeting the board had not yet implemented procedures such as Executive Session or defined the difference between what is publicly released and what is a private conversation. All board members assumed they were operating privately and thus acted accordingly. The full transcript does not accurately reflect the board's collective decision making or consensus building. In this particular instance the full board built consensus around hosting DrupalCon in Chicago and their votes reflect that decision.
-Jacob Redding
Yeah, mea culpa. I was so
Yeah, mea culpa. I was so excited about being able to post minutes publicly that it looks like I raced through too fast and this sentence was a casualty. I blame WYSIWYG. :)
Great first step.
Thanks Jacob, this is a great first step. A few questions though:
1- Where is the proposal from Chicago?
2- Why wasn't pricing or any logistics deemed important in the decision of where to hold DrupalCon? (In that the vote says that these things will be figured out "later")
3- Given that this vote authorized the creation of a "pass through" entity, why wasn't DCI setup as a "pass through"? Was there a subsequent vote that authorized DCI to be setup as an entity that could not be controlled by the DA (VZW)? In other words, was Jacob authorized to set up DrupalCon, Inc as an independent 509(a)2 org?, rather than a 509(a)3 org? (the former cannot be controlled by another board, the latter is an org that supports another org, i.e. something similar to a "pass through")
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Pass-Through
Alex,
The items around Chicago have already been discussed at length. To your question of a pass-through entity I'll refer you to this blog post and the narratives from when we formed DrupalCon Inc. , both of which address your question. To answer it here in the comments my response is:
At the time of the vote DrupalCon D.C. had been ran by a separate non-profit organization not ran or controlled by Drupal VZW. Although many members of Drupal VZW had input into the conference ultimately it was the sole decision of the DrupalCon Inc, which was non controlled or managed by any members of Drupal VZW. It was completely ran by the local D.C Drupal community (Please thank Eric, Bonnie, Alex, and the folks at Dev Seed and other D.C. community members).
Drupal VZW had no oversight, no Governance, and no Control.
The board of Drupal VZW voted to allow me to find the best International non-profit structure that would support the Drupal Community and allow Drupal VZW to either (a) work more closely with DrupalCon Inc. or (b) Create a U.S. entity for the Belgian (VZW) entity to work with/through. The wording of that vote you have contention with but the intention is clear. We want to support the Drupal Community around the world.
I took that task and I sought the assistance of a non-profit lawyer. I also sought the advice of other Open Source foundations including the Linux Foundation, Mozilla, OSI, Apache Foundation, and others. We were advised that the structure of Drupal VZW and DrupalCon Inc. being separate was the best structure.
After operating as two separate entities for quite some time we, like you, realized that this model was confusing to the community (and internally) and wasn't providing the level of governance that we as a community demanded. We returned to our lawyer and looked for ways to reduce this confusion ultimately deciding to shift operations from VZW to DrupalCon Inc. and assigning the name. This was announced by George De. Met and Dries, and has now been implemented.
The Drupal Community is now supported by a U.S 501c3 non-profit, which is rare for an open source project and gives us enormous potential. I find this to be an amazing accomplishment and I am proud to have been a part of it.
You have spoken to our lawyer and you have made it clear to me that you don't agree with our lawyer's advice. It is unfortunate that we disagree but in this case the board and I agree with the lawyers and appreciate having a 501c3 non-profit that can support the Drupal community.
-Jacob Redding
Misleading leads to confusion
Jacob-
I can't help but laugh out loud when you say (if you recall, I laughed for about 10 minutes when your lawyer used this as the excuse why there wasn't self dealing going on):
You say you operated two * separate* entities for some time- this was certainly confusing to the community, mostly because you completely misled everyone (myself included) into believing that one really was an extension of the other. I could give examples for hours (DCI employees representing themselves as being from the DA, DCI employees with DA business cards, the leadership being identical, them having a single website, etc. etc), but this is all sounding pretty close to fraudulent. You took my money for DrupalCon as the ED of the DA, and now your saying my money was really for an org with zero oversite, run by you, dries, angie and tiffany. If you want my trust, it's best not to engage in a run of the mill bait-and-switch on me, or at least expect that I'm going to do everything in my power to rectify. I'll start a post on my own site starting a narrative rundown of public mentions by the DA board of both the DA and DCI, because I feel you were purposefully misleading the community, and your funders, up until I "blew up" this summer, and I intend to prove it (and use whatever means I must, short of a DCoC violation, to do so).
Thanks for sharing. Now, can you point to the vote that authorized you to change direction like this? Again: you were authorized to start a "pass through", you talked to lawyers and other smart people who advised against this, and then you...? This is really not a trivial thing: you created an org that, from where I sit, took millions of dollars that were raised for the DA (VZW) and not only deprived that money from the org it was raised for, but you also basically took over all of its key responsibilities well before the change was announced. I want to know that you did this in accordance with your own statutes, as well as Belgian and US laws. Given the unprofessional (and I would say "immoral") nature of the board during this period I highly suspect that you did not, and I am looking for the facts (and not just those you choose to release and/or edit) to prove it one way or another.
Your lawyer works for you, not me, and I just take her word as an extension of your own. I didn't hear anything in our conversations that led me to believe that any of this was actually on the up-and-up, and I await someone independent of both you and your lawyer to look at these things and make sure they were done in accordance to your own rules, as well as the laws of the land.
Incidentally- did you transfer ownership of the drupal.org domain, as well as responsibility for d.o. itself, to DrupalCon, Inc? Who has legal control our community assets at this moment? (If you transfered the assets, did you have to repay VZW for the money it sunk into those resources?)
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
We're blocked
Alex,
I have tried to work with you but you have closed your ears and stopped listening. You and I have discussed the issues above at length since the beginning of this year and we've sat down over drinks on several occasions discussing the two organizations and how governance works. At one point not long ago and after our transition to the 501c3 you thanked me in person for the work I was doing. This thread is a complete 180 degree flip from our in-person interactions.
The Drupal Association's communication can and should improve, I've stated this numerous times and everyone at the Drupal Association has been working hard to create a great organization.
Unfortunately you began this thread by accusing a board member of a conflict of interest and now you have set your target on me. Ironically you are using my quotes, my wording, and my position on governance to substantiate your claims of a conflict of interest. Everyone at the Drupal Association has worked hard in the best interest of the community and I find your actions to be rude and disrespectful. You have removed any incentive for me to work with you, and, unfortunately, I was your greatest ally, stating numerous times that I agree with your intentions. Mind you your methods are not helpful but your intentions are good.
At this point I feel I have exhausted all resources to work with you.
-Jacob Redding
-Jacob Redding
Are you sure...?
Jacob- I don't want you to take this as a threat, but you have ignored or downplayed every allegation I have brought forth, and now you are saying "we're blocked", so I am going to assume that I have exhausted every avenue within the Drupal community/DA to get this looked at in an impartial and serious way? If you are saying that you're done engaging through these channels then you really are leaving me with very few options. This is not a threat, but I have rights as an American citizen, and you have responsibilities as a tax-free entity representing our community, and I will ensure that my rights are not trampled on, and that you've followed every law to the letter.
If you can't "unblock" yourself, then I'll unfortunately have to pursue other avenues to see justice served.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
You need to calm down.
Raising questions and asking for better policies is laudable, making threats and and asking that they not be regarded as such is a tantrum. By posting these statements you are risking your reputation, your standing in the community and the goodwill that comes with it.
"I'm not angry, I'm from Philly"
I'm not sure what implied threat you're reading into my words, and as far as I can tell I'm pretty calm (or, as calm as I get), but I look forward to discussing in person- come find me at our sponsors table at DCNYC. I'm curious to know how you think it should be handled, and would love more ideas for how to bring this to a positive resolution.
See you soon!
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
If you want my trust, it's
It's healthy to be skeptical, but you frequently assume that people are trying to trick you. Having worked with several of the organizations and sub-committees you are attacking, I don't feel that's a fair claim. Jumping to the conclusion that you are being tricked makes it really hard to take you seriously and engage in these conversations with you.
I'm trying hard to read that in a positive way, but every way I read it the phrasing/emphasis comes across as a threat. And a threat seems like it violates the "be considerate, be respectful, be collaborative" elements of the DCOC.
Again, your method of discussion makes it hard for me to engage with you on a factual, constructive basis.
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
Huh?
Then simply open up, let some sunlight in, and the skepticism will either vanish like a morning fog, or reveal that people were, in fact, trying to trick the community (and me as well).
Yes, I feel like I was scammed (and I'm guessing I'm not the only one). You say I wasn't, and you have more info than I do, so maybe you're right. However, I'll trust my own sniffer until my eyes tell me otherwise (in other words, I'll think it's a scam until I see some proof that it's not what it seems), and reiterate: I feel like the community was hustled.
How is stating that I'll do everything to bring justice here, short of a DCoC violation, a DCoC violation? Sounds to me like an attempt to stifle dissent, and is also not cool (and a misunderstanding of the word "threat"). If that was a threat, then what is your response if not a threat? Anyway, I am simply stating that I will never stop pursuing this until there is a satisfactory resolution (2, 5, 10 years? not a problem). That's not a threat, nor is it a DCoC violation, it's me letting you know that this is not going away any time soon: It's not a disrespect to anyone, nor do I feel that it is inconsiderate. As far as collaborative, the fact that the DA does everything in total secrecy, that it doesn't seem to play by the normal rules/laws, and that it feels free to paternalistically disregard the community's, or even your committee's, wishes, it seems extremely anti-collaborative to me. Speaking of which: when will the full slate of nominees from your committee be made public? Why exactly hasn't it been made public yet?
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Speaking of which: when will
AFAIK it hasn't and I'm not sure it will. I don't think this would be beneficial to the process of creating a cohesive board and having a group of high quality candidates we can potentially draw on in the future. That decision would likely need to be made by the Nominating Committee and the Board and the members of both have more pressing work.
Can you provide examples of other Nominating Committee processes where the list of candidates is made public? Can you find examples where it wasn't?
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
Examples...
I'm glad you're confident that we, the community, do not need to know about the vital functions of our (weak, almost non-existant) governance structures. I think this is where our values fundamentally diverge: I believe that the governance of our non-profit, that is spending our money, should be completely 100% open unless there is a very pressing reason not to do so, and apparently you believe I should have to justify each and every piece of info. I wonder if you weren't on the inside looking out whether your values would change.
(Queue small violin) I have to tell you, this is my #1 pet peeve issue with non-profit organizations: nobody is forcing anyone to volunteer, and if you can't handle your duties and responsibilities then step aside and let those of us who don't have "more pressing work" do what you cannot. Given that I volunteer and give about as freely as I can, I don't give a darned about your "more pressing work": your work is no more pressing than anyone else's.
Can you find other nonprofits that don't have whistleblower protections (for example, ensuring board members don't respond to allegations of inappropriate/illegal behavior by attacking the reporter, calling them "liar", "conspiracy theorist", and "douchebag"- all things I've been called by the DA Board)? Can you find another open source non-profit board that doesn't have a code of ethics? (Take a look at this, and tell me how many items the DA seems to be following: http://www.independentsector.org/governance_ethics_resource_center ) Sure, the new bylaws are a bit better and closer to a minimum standard of non-profit governance in some ways, but it still lacks most of the transparency and governance items that would give me the trust needed to work with you all (esp. after some of your members got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and many other insiders rushed to their defense).
Anyway, I guess you're fine with keeping our business secret. I do think I understand where you're coming from: it's much easier to avoid accountability when you disregard transparency. Making unpopular decisions is much easier in smoky back rooms than in the public square, and I do realize that most people are too cowardly to speak up and let their voices be heard when there is some controversy. Viva la closed!
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Example of public Nominating Committee recomendations
I saw that Ivan Boothe (rootwork) was on a nominating committee while browsing LinkedIn this morning, and what do you know, their nominees are public! http://afsc.org/nobel-peace-prize-nominations
I'm sure I could find more with a little googling, but I still don't get why exactly you are trying to make excuses for secrecy and privacy in our open community (I don't get it for C2R either). I live and love OPEN, and so should you. Secrecy is the enemy of open.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Publishing Nominees
The Joomla community does NOT publish Nominees.
Wordpress does not publish board nominees, either, but that's likely because they don't even have a board.
Both are reasonable peer comparisons for Drupal.
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Nomination committee
Who was nominated for the board?/What were the initial recommendations of the nominating committee?
The people that got elected plus 2 people that didn't get elected at this point. While I believe the 2 other candidates would have made great board members, I understand the reasons why they didn't get elected at this moment.
What were the final votes on each nominee?
I have no information on this
--
Check out more of my writing on our blog and my Twitter account.
I can respond to that...
The approach we (the DCI board) took was to evaluate the slate as a whole coming from the nominating committee, remove those individuals that we didn't all feel 100% about (in both cases it was a "not yet" vs. a "no"), and then accept the remaining members as proposed.
While we could've debated at-length the specific merits of each individual member, or gone back to the nominating committee for additional "runner-up" names to make adjustments to the NC's slate (and we did consider this for a time), we ultimately chose not to for a few reasons:
1) The nominating committee did absolutely excellent work in researching the candidates and putting forth their final recommendations. Seriously. There were like Dungeons and Dragons-esque character sheets for every person the NC recommended which outlined their qualifications and how they fulfilled requirements such as previous non-profit/governance experience, geographical/gender diversity, and so on. This sort of solid research had never been done for any other board election in the DA's history.
The NC looked not only at individual qualifications, but also at how those individuals contributed to a balanced board as a whole. All the candidates had been vetted with questionnaires and interviews as well as discussed and debated by the NC. We felt very confident in (and grateful for) such a thoughtful and thorough process, which had narrowed the list of dozens of people down to 10 that we were not looking to repeat or undermine those efforts. The bylaws provide for an up-or-down vote on each candidate slated and that is what each person received.
(Note the DCI by-laws call for a slate of 9, but the NC decided to send over 10 recommendations, finding it difficult to narrow the list further.)
2) The transition from VZW to DCI is kind of a Big Deal, and since the Nominating Committee was comprised of several of the most engaged members of VZW's former General Assembly (and none of DCI's board members apart from Dries, as President and Founder), it seemed prudent to trust their judgment on what they felt was best for the future of the organization rather than the three of us trying to second-guess them.
3) Accepting the majority of the NC's slate to fill 8 of the 9 open positions positions created a larger and more diverse board, which we felt would be able to move forward to fill the one open slot, as well as organize the elections for the community at large positions. Voting in a board of 9 (8 NC candidates plus Dries in the Founder seat) was preferable to sending the entire slate back to the NC and delaying the process another month.
So, for these reasons, the final votes on the candidates were unanimous.
Whom?
Who is the DCI board? Did Dries really sit on both the nominating committee and vote (for himself, I presume)?
Why is your judgement superior to the nominating committee?
Did the nominating committee, or members of that committee, recommend that anyone specifically be left off of the board?
Other than for efficiency, are there any other acceptable reasons why you can ignore the closest thing the community has wrt a say in the org that controls d.o., DrupalCon, and over $1m of our money?
Also, why aren't the actual nominations public information?
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
How do we move forward
Alex,
Multiple people have responded to you in this thread and all of your initial questions have been answered. You responded with criticism of the answers and more questions. My question to you is how do we move forward?
The Drupal Association has over 1,500 members and supports a community of over 14,000 developers. We all want to create an organization that best supports this community but in order to do so we need concrete actionable steps, ideas, and processes. Work with us to create that organization.
I want to hear your ideas:
What type of organization would you build?
How would you govern it?
What structure would you use?
What by-laws would you put in place?
How do you define transparency? What steps should the Association take to become more transparent?
I have been working with the previous board and will work the new board to become more transparent. One of my first moves is that I'd like the dates for all 2012 board meetings to be set in advance and made public on the Association's website. I have also asked for the meetings to be held in public and provide the board the ability to enter Executive Session.
I hear you on not wanting the organization to be "secret". Now I want to focus on specific steps to accomplish that.
-Jacob Redding
not answered
Jacob, I beg to differ that my questions have been answered fully.
With that said, I will write a post on my own blog about what I'd like to see (and will link to it from here when I do), and note, I have said what I'd like many times, though I'll create a more formal "blue sky" post about my ideal org in the next couple of days.
Some simple things I'd like to see, which I'll follow up with more fully on my own blog:
* No self-dealing on the board, including a pledge that the only financial transaction between a board member, their company, and their company's partners, be a donation to the organization.
* A code of ethics that brings you in line with ethical board behaviors.
* A conflict-of-interest process that actually leads someplace, and has the mandate to remove board members found in violation of the policy. (I have tried all "official" Drupal channels for this, and have gotten nowhere)
* A more representative board that is voted on by the Drupal community (or some subset), and which does not include any life-long voting seats.
* A commitment to keeping DrupaCons affordable, and controlled directly by the community (unless you hire an outside org to host it for us)
* A FoI policy that allows community members to request any information that they want, and that forces the DA to release the unedited information, unless there is a valid legal reason not to do so (respecting privacy is not a valid excuse, even if our former idiot President and his evil assistants did pull that card to hide all sorts of misdeeds)
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
My recollection of how the proposal to shift to DCI happened
I don't feel the need to participate too much here, but it seems like there is one question that isn't clearly answered about when and how the vote to shift most operation to DCI happened.
I'm not sure if those minutes have been posted, or if I'm just looking in the wrong place.
Anyhow, I have long been interested in seeing a bigger role for a US 501c3 and helped to some extent in the process of getting that approved. In July I was frustrated with the lack of progress in getting VZW to adopt a new governance structure (the proposed bylaw changes were stymied by lack of official translations), and it seemed to me that the fact that we generate the majority of our net income in the US, and no longer had anyone present in Belgium meant we should move ahead with shifting the majority of activity to DCI.
I drafted a proposal for the General Assembly, and recruited Greg and Moshe as co-signers and got their input to make some edits. Note that this did not come from any of the DCI or VZW board members, and in fact I recall that Dries was reluctant to make this change this year. So it was a bottom-up proposal from General Assembly members, not something that came from the board.
On July 23, 2011, in accordance with the Drupal VZW statutes allowing at least 1/20th of General Assembly members to add a proposal to the agenda, the three of us as GA members requested the General Assembly of Drupal VZW Vote on the following proposal at the next General Assembly meeting (scheduled for July 28, 2011):
If my memory serves, this proposal was voted on and passed by a 2/3 or greater majority at that meeting, but the meeting itself did not have a 2/3 of the GA members present (short by one or two when people were unable to connect or dropped off the call). Gerhard raised a concern that this was a special vote that required a 2/3 quorum. After initial discussion by email seemed difficult to come to clear agreement on this point, so to insure full compliance with the VZW statutes, the same proposal was placed on the agenda for the next meeting on August 5, 2011, and approved with a 2/3 quorum present.
In terms of timing, you'll
In terms of timing, you'll also note that the post at https://association.drupal.org/node/1584 was several weeks after these two votes, and was reflective of the VZW general assembly decision.
I support moving operations to a C3
Peter- thank you for sharing this info, and ultimately I think most of the questions I initially had wrt to the move to the C3 have been answered.
However, outside of the CoI/self dealing, the part I still am unclear about is how the DA ended up setting up/paying for an entity that it (supposedly) had no control over. Furthermore, I'm still confused about why DCI represented itself as VZW well before July of this year (the DA staff page listed all of DCI's staff until I launched my earlier tirade). Keep in mind- this was the only explanation I was given by the DA's lawyer as to why there was no "self dealing" wrt the contract for Chicago...
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Level heads = best outcomes
I just want to say thank you to Jacob (and the few others who've added some info) for answering all these questions in such a patient and informative fashion. The way you're dealing with this is actually increasing my levels of trust.
Saying it's not a thread doesn't make it not a threat. I truly hope you'll step back from this situation and think twice before you really do damage to the community and what we've collectively built. You have an opportunity to be patient while this organization adapts to the growing needs, and work co-operatively to help attain these goals of more transparency and accountability. I think it'd be mutually a much better outcome.
Threat Bingo!
So, what is this threat that I am making? Standing up for your rights, and demanding accountability, is threatening exactly how (that darned threatening First Amendment!)? I can't believe I have to say this, but maybe there's confusion: the DA is NOT the Drupal community. They are now a secretive & privately held (up until this July the c3 was controlled solely by employees of two companies, as far as I can tell) non-profit, with no accountability, no oversite, and no mandate from the broader community.
Also, I have no, as in zero, power over anything that the "new" DA does (even less so than the old DA)--other than my voice and whatever organizing skills I still have--and I believe I have been very patient. I've been struggling to get them to come clean about their self-dealing and conflicts-of-interest for a year now, and I've been trying to get an explanation for why DCI's staff have been raising money from sponsors as "The Drupal Association" for about 8 months now.
So, threats aside, how would you suggest handling the self dealing and Conflicts-of-Interest (things that would be unfathomable in the vast majority of c3s) that the DA refuses to address, or how would you handle having your money taken for a sponsorship from an org (DCI) that claimed to be the DA for the past couple of years, but now we're being told was a completely independent org?
I'm all ears...
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
even less so than the old
I don't think that's true. The bylaws of both organizations are generally available, can you compare them and point to the changes that you feel gave you less control?
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
No check on Board power
Sure. With the "old DA" there was at least an avenue to (potentially) rid the Board of a rouge/self-dealing member: the General Assembly could vote to remove the person. Now? As far as I can tell there is absolutely nothing a non-board member can do to remove a self-dealer.
In practice I know this wasn't really much of a "check" on the power of the board (heck- they even setup a separate, independent org and offloaded all of the DA's profitable enterprises to it), but at least it was a theoretic check upon their powers.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
But that comment was about
But that comment was about your ability to influence and you were not a member of the old GA so the net effect on your direct influence seems to be nothing?
The new bylaws do have At-Large members over which you will likely have more power (work is under way on creating the framework/process for electing those folks).
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
Not about me...
I know this has been personalized, but this isn't about my ability to influence, it's about the community's ability to influence. 2 seats on a 9 person board isn't worth much, in my opinion. It's time for real transparency, accountability, and ultimately democracy, in the Drupal community!
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
It wasn't "personalized" in
It wasn't "personalized" in some abstract way.
The original quote, of your own words, is by you about you.
But of course it's "not about you" and about everyone: I think my claim stands that the new bylaws are more open to community involvement. The Nominating Committee process is also very similar to the previous process. Previously the entire GA and Board would select the new board. Now the Nominating committee (made up of a mix of folks, but mostly "insiders") presents a set of people to the Board who then does an up/down vote on each.
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
this isn't about my ability
I'm confused. Aren't all members of the board members of the Drupal community? Why are you disregarding 7 of them?
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Along the lines of what Amy
Along the lines of what Amy suggests - I would suggest preserving relationships with those on the DA and working with them to get the information you're looking for and help to improve the transparency and accountability. You obviously have some ideas on how this could be done - but the tone and vibe of attacks and threatening to bring legal action on the DA (which like I was saying WOULD be damaging to the community at large) are going to make them less and less willing to cooperate with you as has been evident over the past day or so.
I can't imagine that someone who was on good terms with the DA and acting in the spirit of positive change for the organization, would have much trouble getting the info and change they're looking for, with a bit of patience and co-operation.
Okay...
Ariane- thanks for the suggestions. I'd love to sit down with you some time to review the past 12 months of attempting to get the DA to address the Conflicts-of-Interest and self-dealing on the board, because I did try to use back channels to address this, with almost no success. I tried in private to get the self-dealing looked at for about 8 or 9 months before I finally went public (and yes, I do realize I did that part wrong), and it wasn't until my screeds that the DA: admitted they had setup an independent org with no oversite to handle all of DrupalCon's activities (in other words: all of the profitable activities of the DA), published their Conflict-of-Interest policy, released their minutes, uncleaned the minutes relating to the CoI (you can see that in this thread), etc. Here's one example: I tried to get the DA to disclose their Conflict of Interest statement (or, more precisely, DCI's CoI statement), and they ignored me completely (until I lost it). This was the same response I received from the (newly appointed after my blowup) Conflict-of-Interest Committee, after asking Jacob for the correct way to file a CoI complaint against a board member. In other examples I have been told "we care" and "we're listening" only to witness the DA completely disregard my concerns, ignore me, and/or privately & publicly insult me (including George DeMet publicly shrieking at me "Liar!" at DCC for blowing the whistle on their self-dealt, bartered, and completely conflicted, contract) and question my integrity (ironic as that seems to me).
This attitude seems very problematic to me. Why should this info only be available to those that the DA likes? Is this a private club or an org purporting to to represent the entire Drupal community (not just those in lock-step agreement with them)? After all, the DA was dominated by 2 companies (who are partners), until recently, and as far as I know DCI was run completely by those two companies before and during this transition. This sort of monopolistic behavior seems extremely anti-competitive to me (esp. given the central role Palantir was given in the Chicago program), and I for one am not about to start kissing up to either of those companies, just to ensure that my sponsor money doesn't get self-dealt into their coffers.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Thank you for the offer, but
Thank you for the offer, but seeing how the interactions with others have gone, I'll politely decline. It's not up to me anyway to decide who's right and wrong in the eyes of the law.
I think that the suggestion that George, Amy, and others have made of having a neutral third party review all of this, is a great one - it doesn't appear that any of the others involved want this to continue to drag on. But mediation requires both "sides" to agree to the mediation and its outcome - so it would seem the ball is in your court to agree and move towards a resolution of this issue.
I am feeling ignored, too. :(
I am feeling ignored, too. :(
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Suggestions for Handling this conflict
Alex -
You keep asking for suggestions on how to resolve this, so I am going offer the same suggestion I made in July http://groups.drupal.org/node/162604#comment-544979
Find a few willing people that you and the board agree to trust to help resolve this. Let them hear the various points of view. Let them decide. Then, abide by their recommendation. You are right that a healthy community does matter and this needs to be resolved as soon as possible to prevent further damage.
Amy
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Great Idea
Amy,
This is a great idea and one that I will volunteer my personal time to work on and participate in. A barrier to creating a working group in the past has been the perception that regardless of the outcome the decision would not be respected. If we are to move forward with an idea such as this both parties have to agree to abide by the outcome. Haven spoken to many of the folks in the Association I'm confident that they will be agreeable to this.
-Jacob Redding
Additional context
As my name has once again been raised in a public setting by Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg in connection with his allegations of wrong-doing by members of the Drupal Association board, I once again would like to take this opportunity to present my side of the story to the Drupal community and set the record straight.
Once again, I want to make it clear, that despite Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg’s repeated claims to the contrary, there was no self-dealing or other improper activity involved with the selection of DrupalCon Chicago or with Palantir’s sponsorship of the event. For additional information on what happened, I would recmmend reading the post I made in response to the accusations he made in July, as well as posts by Earl Miles and Kieran Lal.
Most recently, Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg has alleged that I insulted him by “publicly shrieking at me "Liar!". In the past he’s also alleged that I “screamed” at him and got "all up in his grill" in the hallways of DrupalCon Chicago.
In response, I would like to provide a history of my communications with Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg in connection with DrupalCon Chicago and the Drupal Association and allow members of the community to reach their own conclusions.
The suggestion made by Amy Stephen to have a neutral third party acceptable to everyone involved review this matter seems like a good one to me. If Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg will agree to accept the findings of that review, whatever they are, so that we can all move on, we will be more than happy to do the same. As I’ve said before, both publicly and in private communications to Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg, neither I or Palantir have anything to hide, and we believe that our involvement with DrupalCon Chicago was completely above-board.
While I have summarized these communications as best as I could, I do not have Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg’s permission to reproduce copies of the messages he’s sent me over the past few months. If Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg would like to grant permission for me to post full, unedited copies of all of the emails that he and I have exchanged since January of this year, I believe that would help the community better understand the context for the efforts that I and others have been taken to respond to his concerns, and the responses we’ve received in return.
Prior to 2011, I had only a few interactions with Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg, primarily via email on matters relating to the drupal.org redesign. I do not recall ever having been introduced to him in person, though it is possible that might have happened. My interactions with Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg prior to February, 25, 2011 were largely amicable, and I was unaware of any concerns he had about DrupalCon Chicago or my company’s involvement with it.
My first communication with Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg in connection with DrupalCon was on January 10, 2011, when I emailed him in my capacity as co-chair of DrupalCon Chicago informing him that a session he had proposed for DrupalCon Chicago had been selected. This session was one that I had personally advocated for as a late addition to the schedule, as I felt it covered subject matter important to the Drupal community. His response at that time was, “Thanks, George! See you in Chi-town!”
On January 21, Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg reached out to me via e-mail to make me aware of a situation that had arisen between him and some members of the drupal.org webmaster’s team that had resulted in his user account being temporarily blocked from the drupal.org website. I worked with the different parties involved to mediate between them and help clear up some misconceptions that had arisen.
On the morning of February 25, 2011, I became aware of messages that had been posted both from Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg’s personal Twitter account and the Twitter account of his company accusing the Drupal Association board members from Chicago (my wife and one of my employees) of “corruption” in connection with the selection of that city as the venue for DrupalCon.
I immediately reached out to him via e-mail expressing my surprise at these accusations, and my disappointment that he didn’t reach out to me before making them. I said that I would love to have a call with him that day to clear up any concerns that he had (You can read that email here).
After some emails back-and-forth, where I further explained the situation surrounding DrupalCons San Francisco and Chicago, we did eventually manage to talk on the phone. On that call, Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg explained at length his concerns about the increasing costs of DrupalCon and his concern that DrupalCon Chicago would not be as profitable as past DrupalCons. I addressed his concerns as best I could, though I could not yet tell him exactly how profitable DrupalCon Chicago would be, as the event had not yet happened. I also referred him to Jacob Redding to address some concerns he had about the Drupal Association board’s decision-making process, as I was not a board member of the organization.
Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg assured me that his concerns were “nothing personal”, but that he wanted to improve the transparency of the Drupal Association’s activities. I told him that I agreed with him on this point, and that I wanted to work with him to make that happen. I told him that I was concerned that it seemed like he was leaping to conclusions based on an inaccurate understanding of the decision-making process around the selection of DrupalCon San Francisco and DrupalCon Chicago.
Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg indicated that he was planning to write a blog post outlining the outstanding questions he had. I told him that while I was currently very busy with DrupalCon, I would do my best to find answers to any specific questions that he had, but that in the meantime, I would like him to refrain from making any accusations without knowing all the facts. He agreed to consider this proposal, as he said that he didn’t want to sound like an idiot when he was talking about this matter. I replied that I didn’t want him to sound like an idiot either, and was willing to work with him to make sure that didn’t happen.
Between the date of that phone call and the start of DrupalCon Chicago a week and a half later, I became aware that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg was continuing to make accusations in both public and private settings to colleagues and other members of the Drupal community that Drupal Association board members, including my wife, were engaging in corrupt and possibly illegal activities. I was very disappointed and upset to learn this, as it appeared that he had rejected my offer to work with him to address his concerns.
I next encountered Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg on the evening of March 7, 2011, as I was walking out of the exhibit hall at DrupalCon Chicago. Although we had never met before in person to my recollection, I recognized him from the photo he uses on drupal.org and Twitter.
At that point, I was incredibly tired, having not only spent many hours over the previous days working to prepare DrupalCon, but also having just completed a particularly grueling rehearsal for the opening day plenary and keynote presentation, and having just completed a discussion with a disgruntled sponsor dissatisfied with the size of his booth. I had recently learned that my wife (who was co-chairing the conference) had become pregnant, and I was concerned about the amount of stress and fatigue that she was experiencing as well. I was already pushed beyond my physical and emotional limits, and quite honestly, Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg was pretty much the last person in the world that I wanted to talk to at that point.
My recollection is that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg made a bee-line toward me, and that I, in as calm a voice as I could muster, asked him to “Leave me alone and stop spreading lies about my wife and my employees”. I do not believe that I “screamed” or “shrieked” at him, and I certainly did not “get all up in his grill”.
Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg then continued to approach me and started asking me loudly if I was aware that various activities were illegal under various sections of California non-profit law. Understanding that these were the same allegations he had been making in other settings, I asked Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg if he wanted to go on the record, then pulled out my smartphone as he continued to talk. When he had completed, I said (again, in as calm a voice as I could muster), “You’re wrong”, and walked away. He then shouted after me that I “had better get a good lawyer, dude.”
A short time later, I received an e-mail from Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg with the lengthy draft text of his blog post, which contained several factually incorrect assertions. I replied, explaining that while I did not have time to address his full post, I would correct one key point about the legal status of DrupalCon, Inc., but that he really needed to discuss this with the officers of DrupalCon, Inc. Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg then sent a follow-up e-mail to me to explain that his directive to me to “get a good lawyer” was not a threat of legal action, but advice to check into the legality of Palantir’s contract with DrupalCon, Inc. (which we had already done long before).
Two weeks later, I received another e-mail from Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg reiterating his belief that everything he had written in his previous message was true, and that I owed him an apology. I replied pointing out where he was incorrect on several points, repeated my request that he stay away from me, my family, and employees of my company, and directed him to the Drupal Association for further questions. Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg replied to that message with various additional personal accusations.
That was my last direct interaction with Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg; in subsequent weeks, I became aware that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg was provided with extensive access to various individuals within the Drupal Association, including Dries Buytaert, Jacob Redding, and the Association’s legal counsel, who all attempted to answer his questions and address his concerns.
On July 16, 2011, I became aware that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg had put up a website where he repeated his previous allegations, along with new ones. He also continued to repeat them on Twitter and other media, including a post on groups.drupal.org. In response to that post, I replied, refuting many of Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg’s accusations, and providing full detail and disclosure around the selection process for DrupalCon Chicago and Palantir’s involvement in it.
On July 19, 2011, I formally requested that the Drupal Association Conflict of Interest Committee (on which I sit) provide a recommendation to the Drupal Association board regarding Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg’s allegations. I explained that while I would be more than happy to provide any information or answer any questions anyone has, I would obviously remove myself from any subsequent discussions. My understanding is that this matter has since been referred directly to the Association’s board.
Thank you George for
Thank you George for clarifying "your side" all of this - I think it's very helpful to those who are following and trying to make sense of what's going on.
Quickly...
I will respond to this more fully later, but I think this sounds like a great move in the right direction. In principle I agree that a mediator (or mediators) would be a good way to bring this to a resolution, though not until some ground rules are established (most notably, I want to ensure that DCI and VZW are treated as one and the same organization, and that the only CoI policy available from either org applies to both).
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Alex - For community
Alex -
For community mediation to work both parties must agree that they are unable to resolve this on their own and therefore need the community to sort it out for the good of the project.
The only question for both parties is will you trust the community to do so? I hear George say he thinks it's an appropriate next step, and that's encouraging. I know you also want this resolved, it's been a long battle and it has to be wearing on you.
If you agree, the next step is figuring out three or so willing people who are trusted by the community and especially trusted by both parties. Now, this is where the community trust comes in. It's important for both parties to understand that this group will decide how things are managed, not the two disputing parties, and before they begin this challenge, they must have the full assurance of both parties that unconditional compliance with their decisions will occur.
I'm sorry to be so forceful but this has gone on for some time now and it's not improving. As it continues further, it simply gets more toxic for the community, discouraging for contributors, time wasting for the project, and it is no doubt stressful for each of you involved. It is important that this be resolved as soon as possible.
I know you appreciate that.
Amy
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Outsiders
I think it would actually be better if someone from outside the community was used, otherwise it would be to easy to dismiss the findings. Perhaps having some additional community representatives be part of the process between Alex and the DA would be beneficial, but I don't think a community member should lead it.
--Ryan
Ryan Cross
Drupal Development Services
ProjectPier project management and collaboration software
As a "community outsider," I
As a "community outsider," I volunteer to help in that manner. I am interested in seeing this resolved and can objectively review the material. Alex's concerns will not be ignored, nor would I dismiss any findings. People who know me understand me to be someone who is independent and quite capable of speaking my mind. I am also (hopefully) known to be a long-term supporter of this project and community.
At this point, we have George and Jacob agreeing to the review, offering their support and involvement, and expressing their willingness to abide by the findings.
It would be helpful if a couple of well respected community members who are NOT on the board would volunteer to participate.
Alex has raised this issue a number of times. Repeatedly, he has claimed his concerns have been ignored. That ends with his agreement to the review and his word that he will also comply with the findings. It will not be ignored. It will be taken quite seriously, in fact.
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
I'm sure we could find some
I'm sure we could find some other people from the Open Source community at large - non-Drupallers even - who would help with this. Great idea.
Alex - George shared his emails - can he share yours, too?
George Demet said:
"While I have summarized these communications as best as I could, I do not have Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg’s permission to reproduce copies of the messages he’s sent me over the past few months. If Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg would like to grant permission for me to post full, unedited copies of all of the emails that he and I have exchanged since January of this year, I believe that would help the community better understand the context for the efforts that I and others have been taken to respond to his concerns, and the responses we’ve received in return."
Alex? Do you grant permission to publish your emails? I agree with George that doing so would provide helpful context to his responses which he published.
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Alex, are you willing to turn to the community, too?
Alex -
I hear a willingness on the other side to trust and involve members of this community that both sides agree are able to dispassionately and with an eye towards the good of the community hear this situation and all sides and recommend a path forward.
I believe you want nothing else but to see this settled. I believe you when you say it's not about you, it's about the community having a voice. So, here's your chance to demonstrate with your actions that you trust the community to help resolve even this problem and that you are willing to empower the community and to live within the decisions made and help move forward in a positive way.
Amy
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Hate to be a sour grape
But my experience with pointing out that some dealings in the Drupal community are not transparent led to the same kind of conclusions - that my divergence was disrupting the community and making it a "toxic environment". I have deduced this is said whenever someone says something that is possibly true and unpleasant. Then my voice was eventually silenced by making the thread unavailable to non-registered viewing. Just saying - typically, its best to leave these issues alone because even in an "open source community" many in charge have corporate ways (just follow where the sponsorship $'s are going), and create a spin zone around the information, making it seem as though those who dissent are just a thorn in the side of the Drupal community, wasting everyone's valuable time. Whenever that strategy is used, I know the original thought and reflection had some merit, otherwise it would be simply be ignored for its outlandishness. Its definitely note worthy. For instance, I asked why the PNW Drupal Camp was accepting thousands of dollars of corporate sponsorship, yet still charging presenters who are travelling from far away $50 to pay to present. Seems to me that because Drupal is becoming so popular and prominent in corporate settings where dollars are made, there is some definite positioning going on here, and an influx of hostility, rudeness, and borderline degrading corporate behavior.
Just a quick edit: I think its important to realize there can always be accommodation, we're not always right with our accusations, and its possible to move forward even if we don't completely agree. For instance, in the above scenario, I just didn't go. Sometimes groups can't fix everything or get along perfectly. I think its important to not lose sight of what we're doing - making a really great tool: Drupal.
Another positive suggestion: the parties who feel like they aren't getting what they want should be clear internally that they do indeed want something that benefits them, and the people orchestrating things and gaining power via official accreditation (leading a board, an event, etc.) should be wary of abusing their power or acting in self interest.
These conflicts happen from time to time when power gets involved in a growing and changing environment - its best we all eat our honest pie and reflect upon what is really true.
@slavojzizek - What creates a
@slavojzizek - What creates a toxic environment is unsolved problems left to linger over time. That's why this particular problem is a concern. It's been going on for a year now and it's important to keep the topic focused to help bring closure so that everyone can move forward in a positive way.
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Indeed @slavojzizek we
Indeed @slavojzizek we answered all of your questions about the financials and accusations here: http://groups.drupal.org/node/167784 please don't hijack this thread - if you must, start a new one.
I just listened to a very
I just listened to a very good podcast on Conflict Resolution that was hosted by Randy Fay and Greg Knaddison. What I appreciated the most about their discussion was a sense that, no matter how poorly someone might have raised an issue, the focus needs to remain on resolving the problem.
I was really touched by that because that's exactly how I want to be treated when I approach things in a less than sensitive manner. I also want to apologize to Alex because I allowed my emotions to motivate how I approached my involvement here. I was not respectful or interested in seeing Alex solve his problem.
Alex - I understand your concerns. Communities are tricky. It can be very difficult understanding motivations and intentions even when people are trying to be open. It takes awhile to build those governance frameworks and information can be in short supply. Absent good information, the mind's eye starts to build a picture that fills in the gaps. It's not uncommon, sadly, in our free software communities to become suspicious of the very people who are actually working the hardest to strengthen the project and community and bring the very changes we want to see.
It's true that it is an important part of ensuring an accountable community to ask tough questions. It isn't a popular job, but it is important and it should be appreciated. But, there have to be boundaries, too. Earlier, you mentioned the First Amendment, freedoms that many in our country do not appreciate as much as they should. Along with the freedom of speech we also have a responsibility not to trample the freedoms of others. That's the tricky line we have to find (and refind, over and over.)
Certainly, we must to stop short of accusing people of serious wrong doing unless we KNOW such is the case. In this particular situation, there was NO wrong doing, but over the past many months, specific people and a specific company have been associated with wrong doing and the suggestion of possible criminal acts. These innuendos have been repeated in many places, over and over, and it must be acknowledged that it has harmed the reputation of the people accused. Others see this message repeated, they don't take time to learn the facts, and they start to think, "Where there is smoke, there is fire." and next thing you know, contributors are harmed. That matters. That should matter to everyone.
And, they did nothing wrong, Alex. One person after the other who was closely involved with the event shared their story and these stories fit together and each have said they did nothing wrong. They received no cash. They were given ability to put their name up as a sponsor in exchange for thousands of hours of documented work. That's the truth.
What we can and should do is attack process. What is perfectly fine is calling for (more) openness. (Always good to celebrate advancements, too, since it encourages more of the same.) What's even better is volunteering to DO something that actually helps with the problems you identify.
Alex - You are an important member of a very special community. You can turn this into a positive. Greg's questions made me think how valuable it would be if there was research or a survey available where many free software projects shared their current situation related to governance issues. This community gets fired up with data - and these comparisons would illuminate for the community that the association is actually leading the way for many of these important topics. It could help other projects, as well, grow and pull people together. Imagine how much stronger your voice would be when you are able to share your ideas in a way that helps the community build a roadmap for community development. You are capable of this.
http://www.acquia.com/resources/podcasts/acquia-podcast-37-conflict-reso...
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Getting started with mediation
I want to get the ball rolling with mediation and figure out what the next steps are. However, I think we need to get one thing out of the way before we start, since we aren't going to be mediating facts. I'll respond to George's post at another time (I obviously disagree with his memory of his screams of "Lies!"), but here is the e-mail that I sent George an hour or so after he accosted me:
You can find the rest of the e-mail in the Conflict-of-Interest post, as well as confirmation of most of the facts I presented (though not with the interpretation of them) from a former DA GA member who was active in the debates.
George's response to me was that he was busy, and that I was mistaken to believe that DrupalCon was being run by the Drupal Association board (which is a big problem to me- I'll come back to this in a moment). When George failed to provide any evidence of me lying, I did ask for an apology, and I do expect that a public apology from the DA for those members who told people I was lying (or, more accurately, who screamed it in front of a room of my peers), will be part of the process.
To return to the VZW/DCI thing, this is a big deal for two reasons. First, it is one of two excuses I was given for why the contract for Chicago was kosher (the other was from Jacob, who told me, essentially: "we got a great deal!"). The second reason that this is a big deal to me is that the community was purposefully led to believe that the two organizations are the same (for example, they shared: a board, staff, a website, all printed materials, etc). By claiming that the rules for one org did not apply because they were separate organizations, they have opened up something which seems akin to a shell game. I've started to catalog the early mentions of DCI, as well as the fundraising e-mails I received from official DA e-mails asking me to sponsor, and contracts (that listed DCI) sent to me from accounting@association.drupal.org), which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX7acfffgFfQvKhBRM1_A_LJrdxP15UHkvQ... . If the DA is not willing to admit that, paperwork aside, it is both organizations, then I can't see what we're going to accomplish with mediation. If there's one thing I like less than subsidizing publicity for my competitors, it's being on the wrong end of a shell game. Telling me you represent the DA, sending me e-mails from the DA asking me for money, sending me a contract and invoice from a DA e-mail, and telling me the money will reach the DA, and then telling me "sike! we're totally separate orgs!" seems like a petty scam from where I sit.
This is made even more confusing by the fact that less than 6 months after the DA "clarified" its previous misleading statements, the Belgian organization was essentially mothballed, and all operations transfered to the C3 (how's that for independent?).
If we're really going to move this forward, I'd like to request that the diff for all DA pages be open to the community, if not the entire world. I have seen numerous pages changed to reflect an ideal rather than factual past (the one noted in this post, apparently "mistakenly" changed, with an attachment but still not restored, is just one of many instances of this type of behavior). Obviously diff is on the site, since you showed us the log, now please let the community view the edits. For example, you had DCI's staff listed as DA staff until I put up the Audit site, and I want to be able to show the deceptive "mistakes" that led me to believe you were one and the same org.
So, here's the question: can the DA accept, for the sake of mediation:
- that VZW/DCI should be treated as one organization
- that the board members and staff of one should be seen as the board members and staff of the other
- that the active Conflict-of-Interest policy filed with the IRS will apply to the actions of both organizations
If we can't agree on these central points, then unfortunately I can't see how we can move forward.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Alex - I agree the
Alex - I agree the relationship between Drupal vzw and DCI was very confusing, and that was a major motivation for me for pushing the switch to have the main activity at DCI to resolve the confusion.
However, the 2 were separate legal organizations, operating in different countries, with legally independent boards. You can't demand that further discussion be based on anything else, since it simply would not be true.
Well, the alternative...
is to say that I was the victim of a fraud. If you look at the google doc I posted I was approached by "the DA", asked for money, sent a contract (that wasn't from the DA), etc. You cannot claim you represent one org, take my money, then say it was for a separate org.
Let me ask you what you find more plausible: that the DA filed its paperwork wrong with the (c)3 either leaving off board members and/or creating the wrong sort of non-profit (since it originally was supposed to be a "pass through"), or the whole world outside of their inner circles was just confused and/or lied to. I personally find the prior to be more likely, but if they insist on going the second route, how are we supposed to move forward. Incidentally, this is specifically illegal in the State of California (where DrupalCon and the DA should both be listed, and only DCI is, but isn't compliant yet), where the DC conference, DA board meetings, all accounting for both, and a good amount of fundraising happened.
The non-profit integrity act states:
In other words, it was not legal for DCI to fundraise as or on behalf of the DA (see my e-mails- they certainly said they were raising the money for the DA) in the state of California.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Responsible party
Alex,
I am sorry that you feel you were the victim of fraud. As the person that approached you to sponsor DrupalCon Chicago and as the one that hired our accountant in California and Sales person in Arizona I am the person directly responsible for your confusion and your feeling of fraud. The person that can best address your concerns is me so let's get to the root of it:
This blog post explains the history of DrupalCon and outlines exactly why when you sponsored DrupalCon Chicago you did so through DrupalCon Inc. not through Drupal VZW.
As noted on our website. DrupalCon Inc (now Drupal Association) is a Washington D.C. based non-profit with all accounting and funds held in Washington D.C. We have currently moved our office to Portland, Oregon, as noted here. We have an accountant in San Francisco, California that has collected and deposited checks for us. This is why you sent your check to 300 Beale st. (space that is generously donated by Chapter Three).
Whether we are subject to California law or not is a moot point in my opinion. I disagree with you that I did anything illegal but for you to feel as though you are a victim of fraud is very serious regarding of the underlying law. If you feel that I have not held up my end of the bargain by utilizing your funds in the most appropriate manner then we need to address that. At the beginning of the year I created the first annual report for the Drupal Association letting the community know where the funds were being spent. We will continue to release annual reports alongside our 990s every year.
I find it very unfortunate that I have broken our trust with you but please understand that I am working with you to regain it. I want you and everyone else that donates to the Drupal Association to know that their hard earned cash is going to support the Drupal community, the project, and run educational events that bring more people into Open Source and to our project.
You began this thread by questioning the governance of the organization but have now shifted to accusing the Association of fraud. Let's be clear and frank, you are accusing me of fraud. I hired those individuals, I created the contract you signed, I opened the bank accounts, and I was the principal in the creation of DrupalCon Inc. the 501c3. If you would like to pursue this in a court of law as your words imply I will be the person served with a subpoena and it will be you and I in the court room. I am very comfortable with my position and I feel strongly that I have and continue to work everyday in the best interest of the community that I serve. I have utilized your funds and the donations of thousands of others to do everything I can to build a strong Association and provide great services to the community. I am steadfast in my commitment to this community.
I do agree that the situation which was created was confusing and that is very unfortunate. It was a difficult lesson that we all learned. I am grateful for the over six months of commitment that was given to the Association by a large number of individuals. These people not only recognized the potential for confusion but worked diligently to build a new organization, a new governance model, and worked together to build consensus around it. Instead of complaining about the situation they picked up the torch and ran with it helping to create a stronger Association.
These people in equally awesome non-particular order are:
Peter Wolanin, Nedjo Rogers, Gerhard Killesreiter, Greg Knaddison, Cary Gordon, Tiffany Farriss, George DeMet, Khalid Baheyeldin, Bill Fitzgerald, Boris Mann, Michael Meyers, Steven Peck, Bevan Rudge, David Strauss, Kristof Van Tomme, Moshe Weitzman, Robert Douglass, Fernando Paredes Garcia, Kieran Lal, Angela Byron, Dries Buytaert, Laura Scott, Zack Rosen, Jeff Eaton, Narayan Newton, Jeff Robbins, Isabell Schulz, and James Walker.
This Thursday and once a month there is a Town Hall meeting. You are welcome to join this meeting and ask any of these questions and we'll go into more detail. I and nobody else is shying away from your questions and we have continued to answer your and help you to understand what happened.
Since DrupalCon Chicago you have continually threatened legal action and have spoken to our lawyer on several occasions. At this point if you would like to take me to court I suggest you do so. However, not that I will do everything I can to ensure that not a single dime of the community's funds are spent defending your accusations.
The ball is in your court. You can either work with us to create a better organization or against us. I personally want your assistance in building a strong Association and I believe we can move beyond and come out with something amazing.
-Jacob Redding
And he shoots, and...
Jacob, this is what you told me when I raised my concerns about the self dealing / $45k no-bid contract with you:
Note how you continually say that my money will become revenue for the Drupal Association? How else am I supposed to have interpreted this, other than to believe that you, as a board member and ED of the DA, are raising money for that org?
Let's get on with it. I don't want to work against the DA, but I cannot help but feel I was the victim of a scam, so let's see if mediation can help things. I was told that mediation wasn't about establishing facts, but I'm sure we can make it flexible enough to have an impartial third-party decide whether or not I was given sufficient information about your "independent" organization to decide to fund it.
BTW- what legal actions are you referring to here? The "legal action" I intend to pursue is to expose the truth and speak out against injustice, and that "legal action" is my 1st amendment right. Of course, I would never forswear any avenue to pursue justice, but I cannot see how my words can be interpreted as anything other than a promise to continually and relentlessly tell the world about what I perceive to be misdeeds of the DA Board until justice is served or I am forced to stop (which is hard in the good ol' US of A). As someone who once happily funded the DA's activities (and hope to happily do so in the future) I have no interest in trying to harm the DA financially, and I hope that one end result of this process will be a $45k check (plus interest) paid to the DA.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
expose the truth and speak
I think the truth is pretty well out there at this point (Jacob's recent comment in this thread has links to most of it).
The alleged conflict-of-interest vote on a no-bid contract in which Palantir:
That all does feel like an injustice, but only against Palantir. In my not so humble opinion your sense of justice needs a re-calibration.
Yes, the "Drupal Association" (used colloquialy, not legally) could have been more open about what was happening and could have followed some better procedure but...seriously...it's been over 2 years since the meeting where Chicago was selected for Drupalcon. They have fixed almost all the things you were pissed about. It's time to claim victory in those improvement and move on to other things that need improvement.
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
Interesting...
So, that seems like quite the bargain! They must have paid double that to the host companies of San Fran, Boston, DC, and Denver, right?
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
This is why we need mediation...
@greggles, I'm sure you are (as an insider) completely comfortable with what you've just laid out, but to say your interpretation angers me is a real understatement:
I'm not sure what you mean by "CoI vote on a no-bid contract", because the CoI and the contract are separate but connected problems. The CoI is alleged only because neither the "CoI committee" or the DA itself has done anything substantive to address the clear CoI that existed. Again, the facts that I laid out clearly spell out a conflict, a conflict that led directly to a $45k payment to a board member and a ~$150k contract to one of their clients. DrupalCon, Inc (use colloquialisms or whatever you like) has a CoI policy that demands that deals that are "reasonable, based on competent survey information, and the result of arm’s length bargaining" (see section 3 of the CoI policy). So let's see the damned survey info and arms length bargaining: who else was asked to provide an estimate for the work in Chicago? What about for the party? If there was no no-bid contract, then simply show the community who was asked to bid and what their responses were.
This sure does tell me that one of our senses of right and wrong is off (being close to "power" has that effect). Anyway, can you tell me how much the previous and next volunteers / host companies are getting paid? Are they getting paid in advance of doing any of the work? (I'd love those terms! And getting paid to volunteer is a really, really sweet gig! BTW- how much were all of the other volunteers paid?) From where I sit, it probably seems just to you because you are friends with the people involved, and/or you have inside knowledge which I cannot access, which is to say, it isn't just at all.
Since this is an actual organization, one that I've given significant (to me) sums of money, I'm not comfortable using "colloquial" terms. One org asked me for money, then sent me a contract from a different org (keep in mind: I had a vote in my possession, which is now public after much wrangling, that authorized the creation of a "pass through" org) as well as an invoice (all sent from the first org's e-mail addresses from people the entire world were told were DA staff), and then when I complained about how the leaders of this org were misusing the community's funds (besides the contract, the fact is that the conference was TWICE as expensive as SF, to be in friggin Chicago in the winter!) I was told (again and again) that the two orgs are "totally separate". That is a shell game--a bait and switch--and it boggles my mind that it seems okay with you
What things have they fixed exactly? It looks like another company or two is represented on the board, but Acquia and Palantir still dominate the board and advisors (who have zero new people as far as I can tell), and the rest of the community has been mostly shut out. Also, the contract for this is not two years old, and the conference was this year, so trying to paint it as "distant past" is just wrong.
It's time for a real change- this inside/secretive dealings needs to end, and we need people overseeing our money who aren't tainted by using the non-profit we all support to further their own business dealings (you don't think that having the Con in Chicago--expanding their lucrative local market--and giving themselves two prime keynotes was extremely valuable to their business?).
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Correction
Mr. Urevick-Ackleberg continues to allege that Palantir's involvement with DrupalCon Chicago led to a "~$150k contract to one of their clients". This is in reference to the opening night after-party that was held at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. This is not only a false assertion, it's also been previously corrected in my July 18, 2011 reply to his groups.drupal.org post:
To summarize: The total payment to the Field Museum was less than $65,000 and over 80% of that cost was for beverages served to attendees. The remainder of the costs for the opening night after-party were paid to other vendors (food, A/V, transportation, etc.).
Furthermore:
As previously stated, the venue evaluation and contract negotiation was all done by Groundswell Marketing; no one from Palantir had any contract signing authority for DrupalCon Chicago. I believe our involvement with the after-party venue selection process primarily consisted of providing a list of potential venues to Groundswell. While I cannot remember offhand all of the party venues that were considered, I do know that some of them included Navy Pier, River East Arts Center, and LaSalle Power Company.
My bad...
So only $65k of the ~$150k we spent at the field museum went to your client. Sorry for the confusion, the other number was from your closing plenary (at roughly 20:30 Tiffany claims it cost $135k, which is closer to 150 than to 65...)
But, since the COI would obviously have been in effect, what other venues were investigated and what were the costs for those locations?
Again, I have no idea whether the contract was ok or not (and I did enjoy the party) but I do think it needs to be looked at to make sure you followed the rules of both orgs + the laws of the land... It's called a periodic review, and it's in your COI policy on file with the IRS.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
It is very important that
It is very important that there be no confusion on this point, as this allegation (which Mr.Urevick-Ackelsberg has continued to make even after the full and correct breakdown of the party costs were provided to him) potentially impugns not only DrupalCon, Inc., but also the Field Museum of Natural History, which is also a Section 501(c)(3) organization. The rates DCI received for the event were all the museum's standard rates for non-profits.
Additional correction
Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg has alleged that Palantir "gave themselves two prime keynotes" at DrupalCon Chicago. This is incorrect. As documented on the DrupalCon Chicago website, the keynote speakers for DrupalCon Chicago were Dries Buytaert, Clay Shirky, and Jared Spool. None of those individuals are, or ever have been, employees or contractors of Palantir.
As one of the Diamond sponsor benefits, Palantir was entitled to make a "three minute company introduction before one of the three keynote sessions." This benefit is consistent with those offered at previous DrupalCons, such as DrupalCon San Francisco. Palantir did not pick which keynote to introduce, the other two Diamond-level sponsors (Acquia and VPS.NET) were allowed to choose first.
Is this the mediation?
...cause if it is I have a lot of info to drop in here.
Palantir was given one 3 minute session in front of the crowd? Hmm, I'm no mathstitician, but I can count more than three minutes here: http://chicago2011.drupal.org/closing-plenary
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
While I would like to respond
While I would like to respond in full to the assertions made in this post, Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg has still not provided me with permission to share the full and unedited copies of all of the emails that he sent me following the incident in the hallway at DrupalCon Chicago.
What I can say is that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg's characterization of my March 9 e-mail response to him is incorrect; the actual text of that message was:
I feel that being able to post Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg's subsequent responses to that message would provide additional context that would help the Drupal community better understand the tenor of his claims and the actions that have been taken to respond to him both publicly and privately.
Go for it...
George- anything I've said to you in private, I've said in public. I am not claiming that I am always right, but I believe I am right about the central facts here. Regardless, I don't believe you need my permission to post my e-mails, and I feel similarly unrestrained.
For the record, this response was the first time I had ever heard that DCI was a "separate org", which is unfortunate, since DCI raised money from me as the DA, using the DA web properties, DA e-mail addresses, and supposedly DA staff (something that is now claimed was just a misstatement, despite the fact that these folks represented themselves as the DA long before VZW was folded into DCI, and were listed as DA staff from their first days of work). When you tell me you are X, take my money for X's operations, and then tell me my money went to Y, that is known as a "bait and switch", and I'm sure any sensible person will agree.
Anyway, regardless of the facts, let's move forward. What's the next step?
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Full and unedited versions of
Full and unedited versions of the emails exchanged between Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg and myself between March 7 and March 28, 2011 can be found here.
These emails demonstrate that it was repeatedly explained to Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg prior to the public allegations he made in July of 2011 that neither Tiffany Farriss or Larry Garfield were officers of the organization with which Palantir.net, Inc. had its contract at the time of DrupalCon Chicago. They also demonstrate the variety of responses I received from Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg when I attempted to correct his misunderstandings and invalid assertions.
My understanding is that subsequent to this correspondence, Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg was also able to discuss his concerns with Jacob Redding, Dries Buytaert, and DrupalCon, Inc.'s legal counsel, among others, and receive additional information about Palantir's involvement in DrupalCon Chicago and the legal relationship between DrupalCon, Inc., and Drupal VZW. Significant amounts of time have been spent over the last year dealing with Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg and his allegations.
I understand that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg disagrees with a decision that was made over two years ago to host DrupalCon in Chicago, and that he disagrees with the decision to give my company a free sponsorship package in return for spending a couple thousand hours working on the event. That's his right, and he's made his points abundantly clear.
Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg has also expressed his confusion with the previous legal structures of the Drupal Association and the recent transitions made by the organization. As someone who's been involved with the Association for just over a year and a half now, I can tell you with great certainty that he wasn't the only one.
I can also tell you that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg's statements and actions over the last several months helped highlight the importance of efforts that were already underway to improve the organization's transparency and governance model. To be clear, those changes were not made in reaction to his claims, but I think it's fair to say that Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg helped provide the "kick in the pants" the organization needed to finally finish something it's known it's needed to do for some time. From that perspective, Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg's quest to reform the Drupal Association succeeded some time ago.
I cannot speak on behalf of the Drupal Association, but on behalf of Palantir, I can say that if Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg is unwilling to drop his claims against me, my company, and my employees, I would welcome an independent review of the matter, with no stipulations other than that the persons conducting the review be mutually agreed-on by all involved and that all parties agree to accept the findings of the review once it is complete.
While Palantir will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the reputation of the company and its team members, it is my personal belief that the time and resources of the Drupal community are best spent improving the software platform and building the community that supports it, and that's why I support a prompt and decisive resolution to this ongoing dispute.
Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg and I are in agreement on at least one thing: that we both want to move forward. I'm willing if he is.
I am willing
...and waiting for some idea of what the next steps are.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Do you agree?
George said, "I cannot speak on behalf of the Drupal Association, but on behalf of Palantir, I can say that if Mr. Urevick-Ackelsberg is unwilling to drop his claims against me, my company, and my employees, I would welcome an independent review of the matter, with no stipulations other than that the persons conducting the review be mutually agreed-on by all involved and that all parties agree to accept the findings of the review once it is complete."
Do you agree to that Alex? I think George has outlined a very generous offer. Given the accusations you have made, I think it's only fair that you also afford him this review and the findings.
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
I agree to abide by what we
I agree to abide by what we agree through mediation, but this is not between myself an Palantir. My contract and my concerns are both with the Drupal Association / DrupalCon Inc.
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Thank you for responding, Alex
In this thread, on your website, in previous threads on this site, on the association's website, over this past year, you have very publicly and specifically accused Palantir of wrong-doing, grievances that you claim are so serious that you have even indicated the deeds are "possibly illegal."
Earlier, you mentioned your right for Freedom of Expression, the 1st amendment of United States of America's Bill of Rights. As you know, the Bill of Rights have 10 amendments and the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments guarantee citizens who are accused to a process by which they can heard.
Palantir has the right to be heard and to have a group review your claims and share their findings. It is not fair to withhold that process from them or to force them through another year of these unsubstantiated accusations. Surely as someone who embraces personal rights, you can appreciate that.
My recommendation would be for you to stop posting now and focus your attention on organizing your claims into one final list that is specific to what you believe Palantir did wrong, and share it in your next post along with your agreement to abide by a groups finding on that matter.
With that in hand, finding a group to review your claims would be next.
On your claim of fraud that you are now making against the association, in my opinion, that's a clear criminal accusation and I tend to agree with Jacob on how that should be handled. He's recommended to you a few options. If you disagree with those options, then take the time to write up a separate list that outlines your points on that claim and post it as a second, unrelated issue. I'm not certain if there will be an agreement to use a process for that purpose but it will be easier to consider with your claims clearly organized. It would be helpful if you also clearly indicated how you want the problem resolved and if you avoid those terms we use, like "open" that tend to have different meanings to different people.
But, that should be separated from your Palantir claims. And, the Palantir claims should be the priority, in my opinion.
Can you agree with that? Can you appreciate Palantir's position and help ensure their rights, too?
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org
Alex - I am stunned. Again,
Alex -
I am stunned. Again, you published another private note without permission while failing to respond to repeated requests to share yours. In this thread, you have violated the privacy of others. You have accused those people of not being open. They have openly shared their private notes. They have showed you respect by requesting your permission to share your private notes and have withheld doing so absent your response. You have repeatedly ignored those requests for your permission to share your emails while continuing to claim high moral ground. It's a bit much, Alex, and it doesn't speak well of your side of this debate.
As far as mediation, you are failing to understand the seriousness of this situation or how mediation works. No, you cannot put terms on what the mediator group does. Mediation is a last resort. It is an agreement by those in conflict that you are collectively unable to resolve this problem, that you agree you are not able to do so alone, that you agree it is damaging the project and community by continuing, and that you are asking for help and are willing to accept the group's findings without question or further debate till death do us part or the sun turns to blood or the moon fails to rise, period. All in agreement to the process are putting the community and project's best interest ahead of their own and are trusting others to help.
The association has agreed to participate. Are you willing?
~~ Amy Stephen ~~
http://OpenSourceCommunity.org