Mailing List Archive

Lodewijk writes:

> Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> chapter seats ...
<text omitted>
> And this has been done without asking even advice to the community or
> the chapters?

I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The opinions
of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of its
governance issues.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/4/27 Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>:
> Lodewijk writes:
>
> > Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> > been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> > chapter seats ...
> <text omitted>
>
> > And this has been done without asking even advice to the community or
> > the chapters?
>
> I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The opinions
> of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
> and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
> were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of its
> governance issues.

It can't of been. There's been very little (if any) discussion about
chapters appointing board members, since the idea never really came up
(it may have been mentioned in passing once or twice). If the board
wanted our opinions, they would have had to ask for them.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2008/4/27 Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>:
> > Lodewijk writes:
> >
> > > Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision
> has
> > > been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> > > chapter seats ...
> > <text omitted>
> >
> > > And this has been done without asking even advice to the community or
> > > the chapters?
> >
> > I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The opinions
> > of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
> > and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
> > were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of its
> > governance issues.
>
> It can't of been. There's been very little (if any) discussion about
> chapters appointing board members, since the idea never really came up
> (it may have been mentioned in passing once or twice). If the board
> wanted our opinions, they would have had to ask for them.
>
>
If SJ had his special "I agree with Anthony" moment earlier today in the
press thread, I have my "I agree with Thomas" moment (and of course "I agree
with Lodewijk" moment) right now.

I dare say that I read every post on foundation-l (quasi ex officio...) and
I try also to read up on other places where discussions could take place
(meta...) but I have seen no discussion at all of these changes.
Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing at all against these changes, I am
rather supportive of them and I think I have also made it clear in the past
that in my opinion chapters should take a more active role in WMF governance
(eg by appointing board members).

However, when it comes down to communication and consultation, I must say
that I, too, am a bit disappointed here.
Could a simple email stating "Hi all, we as a board have discussed board
structure and have tentatively agreed on the following model <explain
distribution of seats>, what do you think of it" have had any negative
impact at all?
Sure, maybe some would be opposed to it. There might even have been flame
wars but seriously, we've had this before and we somehow survived them.
If the choice is between "no requests for opinion at all" and "requests for
opinions and flamewars" afterwards, I'd rather have the flamewars, because
these we can handle, even if need be with stricter moderation.

I know that there are issues which shouldn't be discussed in public, for
legal (and possibly even PR reasons). But I'm pretty much convinced that
this one is not such an issue.

Eventually, it is always the board that has to decide on what actually
happens. I'm not saying that the board needs to follow the consensus of
foundation-l because this list is neither a fair representation of the
Wikimedia community nor a group of governance experts.
The board would still be at liberty to make decisions contrary to the
majority views on this list, stating that it preferred to listen to other
sources (be it external advice or other internal Wikimedia-related
groups/fora)

But, simply put, asking wouldn't have hurt.

Michael



--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I have not devoted much time to governance issues over the past year, so I
wasn't sure at first how this latest change came to pass. The more I read
and think about it, the more the pit in my stomach grows... Anthere: too
horrible, but perhaps not in the way you meant.


On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 6:09 AM, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> ... bringing down the community share in the board from
> 71% to 50% or 30% (depending whether you count chapter seats as


This was indeed an extraordinary change, and not signalled in advance. The
alteration of the latest two community seats into something more restricted
feels wrong to me... like a committee compromise between two better
alternatives. Procedurally, this wasn't even brought up in the March
minutes and makes me very nervous about what else might happen without
notice or consultation.

Effe notes this sets a poor precedent. It also shines a light on the
elephant in the room, which we have long ignored -- our community is
dissipating, our Foundation is not designed or motivated to deal with this,
and yet we are distracted from finding a solution; but more about that in a
moment.

Community representatives on the board are literally supposed to be that,
and I don't see how they could represent us without direct input and
engagement. For curiosity's sake, I would be interested to know what
outside advice was solicited on the restructuring. Frankly, I haven't felt
'represented' since the Board stopped holding open meetings and inviting
discussion in advance of proposed agendas.
((trivia: how long has it been since there was a commentable public version
of a board meeting agenda?))


> I know it is not customary (unfortunately) any more that single Board
> members speak up.


I would also like to hear individual perspectives. This shift suggests a
weakening, not a strengthening, of the Board's ability to effectively carry
out its role and its duties to the Foundation. I would like to see
dissenting opinions posted for all resolutions and opinions, but especially
for this one.

More importantly, for those on this list who haven't noticed yet : the
wikipedia community is weakening. This is not inherent; we are nowhere near
our potential even as a meme; it is due to restriction and neglect. This
is also not new; though easier to see over time -- the community has been on
a broad decline since 2006. We have stopped founding major new projects,
poured cold water on various community initiatives in the spirit of
unification of brand, and generally eroded the community's boldness,
authority, and implicit entrustedness with the success of the projects. I
saw "we" here because all 750+ people reading this list have had some say in
this as it has happened.

Wikipedia-l traffic is down to 15k a month; wikien will drop below 300k this
month for the first time since the Indian Ocean Earthquake. There are fewer
and fewer newbies who post to lists such as this, or feel they can have a
say (or have a stake!) in project governance. It embarrasses me every time
a wikimedian I respect trashes the foundation-l list, as this is one of our
few thriving community channels, something we should all respect.

The community's sustainability been hampered by a foundation structure that
regularly sees itself at odds with its communit[ies], has arrogated
authority for various tasks away from community members, and has absorbed
some of the best community members and then slowly, unwittingly incented
them not to speak their mind.[1]

The foundation has faced its own internal struggles, so there are of course
reasons it has not balanced its necessary bureaucracy with transparency, or
been open about its direction and priorities[2]. However, the result is
current priorities that (as might be expected) match the needs of the new
bureaucracy -- including funding, expedient decision making, and
professional staff -- and not those of the projects.[3]
((trivia: how long has it been since the last open board meeting?))

If we don't aggressively address this, the Foundation will soon oversee a
useful, grantor-friendly, but increasingly ossified set of works; no longer
one of the active wonders of the world. This is the sort of thing that
Board, advisors, and all 800 people reading this list should care about[4].
Worrying about minimizing public discussion and criticism when we face a
fundamental crisis with no obvious solution is misdirected.

Decisions like the latest board revision, made in haste, without discussion,
and viewing the community's interests as secondary to expedience, are felt
throughout the projects! and are a major part of this decline.

SJ
((answer[s]: 1. since before the start of the community's decline | 2. far
too long ))

[1] another part is the rise of a generation of newbies that no longer has
the bold founding spirit and has not been imbued with it by others --
something a greater focus on project sustainability could address. Jimbo,
among others, used to be very good at this.
As for absorbing good community members : the foundation's take on
privacy and control filters out, into the projects and chapters and into
community bodies such as arbcomms, and contributes to the rise of local,
ehm, cabals.

[2] the major exception was the public discussion of the revision of the
foundation's mission and vision statements. presumably a board that
chooses to restructure without public discussion would feel free to change
other founding documents without public discussion.

[3] Perhaps this simply means that the foundation does not wish to address
the specific needs of the projects, and instead wants to be a
self-sustaining pillar handling funds and professional relations with other
organizations. Perhaps we need a separate concept, if not a body, to
represent the core social and practical needs of the projects is needed. I
don't know., and I'm on the fence about proposals I have seen for the
latter. But avoiding stagnation should be foremost on everyone's minds, and
this board restructuring and shift away from public board deliberations feel
like steps in the wrong direction.

[4] is there a public place to contact our advisors? if not, can someone
forward this to them?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

(Resent with corrected subject header and attribution -- apologies for
my errors.)

Thomas Dalton writes:

>> I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The
>> opinions
>> of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
>> and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
>> were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of
>> its
>> governance issues.
>
> It can't of been. There's been very little (if any) discussion about
> chapters appointing board members, since the idea never really came up
> (it may have been mentioned in passing once or twice). If the board
> wanted our opinions, they would have had to ask for them.

I think it's an error to infer, simply because the particulars of the
Board restructuring were not vetted through you, that chapter and
community concerns did not weigh heavily on the Board as it considered
all the goals it was attempting to meet through restructuring. I can
assure you that your general comments and feedback here and elsewhere
figured prominently in the Board's consideration of these issues.


--Mike





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board restructuring and community
To: effeietsanders@gmail.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:58 AM


[3] Perhaps this simply means that the foundation does not wish to address
the specific needs of the projects, and instead wants to be a
self-sustaining pillar handling funds and professional relations with other
organizations. Perhaps we need a separate concept, if not a body, to
represent the core social and practical needs of the projects is needed. I
don't know., and I'm on the fence about proposals I have seen for the
latter. But avoiding stagnation should be foremost on everyone's minds,
and
this board restructuring and shift away from public board deliberations feel
like steps in the wrong direction.


This is clearly the answer in my mind. However I feel this line was crossed about a year ago not just the other day. (Where have you been!) The WMF is an outward looking organization indifferent to the small successes and failures of the wikis. And more worried about preventing large failures than facilitating large successes. As far as the stagnation and restriction that you talk about, I believe it comes more from the OTRS/meta-minded Wikimedians rather than the board (I recognize this group also does a great deal of good and plain tedious stuff that no-one else does). And it is not as though WMF takes a strong role in leading that group. I can actually see the rejection of the Volunteer Council as being the board reigning the momentum in that direction in a bit. (While there were other ideas, Milos posted a great deal about top-down governance in regards to the Council)

Honestly I have given up on the WMF doing anything positive with a inward-looking looking focus (outside the work of the developers of course). But I also don't believe all the wiki's are in the trouble that you describe. I think the autonomy of the wiki's will pull them through. And while they would be better off with a best-case WMF focused on their development, they may be better off that the current WMF is indifferent. The only good thing about the politicking and power-plays within WMF is that they have hardly touched the wikis.

Birgitte SB


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I don't know if others are simply not reading the situation as I have been but I though I would share my impressions here. The restructuring strikes me as being a difficult compromise. Overall I am happy with it considering what I imagine some of the extreme positions to have been. I don't believe anyone went into board meeting anticipating the outcome that was just announced. My impressions from reading this list for years is that most people had much more extreme positions. I imagine that some want something close to a 10-member board with 3 traditionally elected members and others wanted close 80% traditionally elected members. Some people want to have Jimmy's seat to be "community elected", while others feel doing that would be stealing a seat from the community since there is little chance anyone could beat him. I imagine the "chapter election" scheme was a creative compromise to allow the majority of seats some insisted to be from the community
while addressing the distrust others have for the results of our traditional community elections (i.e. Danny was nearly elected last run and that obviously cannot sit well with some board members).

If there had been a large discussion on board restructuring before the meeting I doubt that the current compromise would have even been on the table for us to discuss. And let us not forget the numerous threads on board restructuring from Florence which received little or no responses. If there had been a discussion beforehand, I think it would have focused on extreme positions rather than anything close to a workable compromise. And most board members would not share on this list what issues are deal-breakers for them, so we would be unable to offer anything specific for a proposal that would having any hope of passing. And I think in general, community concerns over the board have been discussed enough in the past to ensure the board was not uniformed.

On the other hand, I do not see why the board cannot treat the current proposal as in a "community comment period" right now before making the actual amendment to the by-laws. For one thing I would suggest that the "expertise" seats constitute "up to four seats" rather require four seats to always be filled.

Birgitte SB


--- On Sun, 4/27/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Board restructuring and community
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 5:09 AM
> Dear Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe
> Jimmy too)
>
> Yesterday the Board announced a major change in the bylaws
> and power
> structure. Although I see some positive aspects in the
> change from my
> personal point of view (I have still not seen the official
> changes -
> as you might know by now, I am for balance - so until then
> I can't be
> definitive about that), let me summarize what is happening
> here:
> Without asking any feedback from the community before the
> decision has
> been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats
> into
> chapter seats (it has always been announced that Domas'
> and Michaels
> chair were intended to become community seats too) and two
> expert
> seats were added, bringing down the community share in the
> board from
> 71% to 50% or 30% (depending whether you count chapter
> seats as
> community seats) of course assuming that the expert seats
> will be
> filled too.
>
> This is quite a huge change with a huge impact on the power
> structure
> of the Wikimedia Foundation and therefore of the Wikimedia
> Movement.
> And this has been done without asking even advice to the
> community or
> the chapters? I find this a very strange procedure for a
> movement as
> the ours, and I am for the second time in a row very much
> disappointed. This time by all community Board Members, who
> - all of
> them! - dit NOT contact the community or chapters for a
> view!
>
> I would very much like an explanation from every board
> member why they
> have chosen not to ask the opinion of the community.
> Because you're
> not going to sell me the story that this idea was totally
> new on the
> board meeting, and that you had no time. Because this was
> of course
> already on the agenda of the meeting: "We plan to
> dedicate saturday to
> board development and governance. This will include
> relationships and
> contractual agreement between board and executive director,
> possible
> future council, next elections, professionalization of
> board, etc..."
> (quote from Florence's email announcing the coming up
> Board meeting)
>
> And please don't tell me either that the only
> "platform" there is, the
> foundation-l, does not function any more. Although that
> statement
> would be true to some extent, but it would highly puzzle me
> why the
> heck you have concluded from the new layout of the board to
> *not* need
> a Volunteer Council of *any* shape any more. Why you do not
> even want
> to encourage the research after the possibilities any
> more... Let me
> quote from your FAQ: "* `What does this [The
> restructuring of the
> board, LG] mean for the 'wikicouncil?' - The
> "wikicouncil" and
> "volunteer council" were part of the board
> discussions about its
> restructure. At this stage, we have decided to not take
> action on the
> proposal to develop a Volunteer Council. (...)"
>
> I think this restructuring of the Board only shows once
> more why we
> need a Wikicouncil. The Board itself is apperently not able
> to ask
> input herself on big decisions, and this sets a very bad
> precedent to
> the future. Apperently the Board is in need of some kind of
> council
> that is, in contrary to the few community members left in
> the board,
> able to bring through the questions to the communities.
> Maybe the VC
> would not function perfectly, but from what I am seeing
> now, it would
> at least do a much better job, because of course this is a
> very sad
> day for community involvement in the Wikimedia Movement.
>
> So please, Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and
> maybe Jimmy
> too), let's just be fair and state your opinion. What
> is *your*
> thought about community involvement. Should community only
> be allowed
> to say something every two years? Should community only be
> allowed to
> say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting,
> btw)? Do
> you think community members could be smart people who have
> a smart
> opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they
> might come up
> with arguments you did not think of yet?
>
> If you think so, you should start working, in one way or
> another, on
> some kind of platform that is able to improve your attempts
> to contact
> the community on major decisions. And no, I have no
> ready-boiled plan
> for it, but I do know that there is a catalyst out there,
> that could
> come up with a nice result. That catalyst consists of a
> group of
> dedicated people, with a wide range of views, that could
> maybe come up
> with something that is actually good.
>
> If you think this all is no longer needed, then please say
> so, then we
> know what we're up to.
>
> I know it is not customary (unfortunately) any more that
> single Board
> members speak up. However, in this case I find it very
> important not
> to hear the Boards voice any more, but the individual's
> voice. Because
> that is highly important to be able to choose between
> people in
> elections and "chapter appointments". Is it not
> on a short term, then
> it will be in a year, but there will be a moment, and I
> would like to
> know who I am dealing with here. As I said before, I am
> disappointed
> in you, and that means that I had a better impression of
> you.
>
> Regards, and looking forward to all your replies,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think it is very much fair to say that concerns of the ordinary
membership about representation were not taken into adequate account,
when they are not discussed openly and lead to a major loss of
representation of the ordinary membership.
The board is doing what executive committees of all sorts regularly
do, which is to assume that it can best judge for everyone else. Not
surprisingly, that judgement almost always leads to the loss of
representation from elected members, who would represent everybody
else. tI's discouraging to see the gradual decline in the role of
the people who do the ordinary work at Wikipedia, in contrast to those
who seem to be running it.
FWIW, Citizendium selects its governing committee by asking which of
the frequent contributors above a fixed cutoff in participation want
to be on it, and then choosing by lot. That's a very primitive form of
democracy, but its better than self-perpetuating boards with the power
to change their own constitutions to suit themselves.
A majority of the members of the board should be directly elected
without special representation. The inclusion of the different
geographical areas has proven itself to be sufficient without special
chapter seats chosen by not-yet specified means. And the usual way
to provide sufficient input in special areas is not by private
appointment, but consultants. WP is becoming an explicitly top-down
hierarchy; the informal organization in that direction is unfortunate
enough (though inevitable), without enshrining it.

I challenge the board to put its suggestion up for a open plebiscite.



On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> (Resent with corrected subject header and attribution -- apologies for
> my errors.)
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
> >> I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The
> >> opinions
> >> of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
> >> and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
> >> were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of
> >> its
> >> governance issues.
> >
> > It can't of been. There's been very little (if any) discussion about
> > chapters appointing board members, since the idea never really came up
> > (it may have been mentioned in passing once or twice). If the board
> > wanted our opinions, they would have had to ask for them.
>
> I think it's an error to infer, simply because the particulars of the
> Board restructuring were not vetted through you, that chapter and
> community concerns did not weigh heavily on the Board as it considered
> all the goals it was attempting to meet through restructuring. I can
> assure you that your general comments and feedback here and elsewhere
> figured prominently in the Board's consideration of these issues.
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Samuel Klein wrote:
> ((trivia: how long has it been since there was a commentable public version
> of a board meeting agenda?))

About a month.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/040556.html

(28th of march)

I have *always* (afaik) published in advance board meeting agendas.

ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Birgitte SB wrote:
> I don't know if others are simply not reading the situation as I have been but I though I would share my impressions here. The restructuring strikes me as being a difficult compromise. Overall I am happy with it considering what I imagine some of the extreme positions to have been. I don't believe anyone went into board meeting anticipating the outcome that was just announced. My impressions from reading this list for years is that most people had much more extreme positions. I imagine that some want something close to a 10-member board with 3 traditionally elected members and others wanted close 80% traditionally elected members. Some people want to have Jimmy's seat to be "community elected", while others feel doing that would be stealing a seat from the community since there is little c
> hance anyone could beat him. I imagine the "chapter election" scheme was a creative compromise to allow the majority of seats some insisted to be from the community
> while addressing the distrust others have for the results of our traditional community elections (i.e. Danny was nearly elected last run and that obviously cannot sit well with some board members).
>
> If there had been a large discussion on board restructuring before the meeting I doubt that the current compromise would have even been on the table for us to discuss. And let us not forget the numerous threads on board restructuring from Florence which received little or no responses. If there had been a discussion beforehand, I think it would have focused on extreme positions rather than anything close to a workable compromise. And most board members would not share on this list what issues are deal-breakers for them, so we would be unable to offer anything specific for a proposal that would having any hope of passing. And I think in general, community concerns over the board have been discussed enough in the past to ensure the board was not uniformed.
>
> On the other hand, I do not see why the board cannot treat the current proposal as in a "community comment period" right now before making the actual amendment to the by-laws. For one thing I would suggest that the "expertise" seats constitute "up to four seats" rather require four seats to always be filled.
>
> Birgitte SB

Your email is pretty much on the spot Birgitte !

ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [4] is there a public place to contact our advisors?

Anyone who wants to contact the advisory board is welcome to go
through me for that. I can either forward messages to the whole group,
or pass on contact details for specific members who might be able to
help. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board

> if not, can someone forward this to them?

I have forwarded your email to the advisory board members. However, I
should point out that they were not asked about this either and know
less about it that readers of this mailing list. All I get from the
board of trustees is announcements after they've made their decisions
behind closed doors, not any requests for advice.

Angela

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Samuel Klein wrote:
> > ((trivia: how long has it been since there was a commentable public
> version
> > of a board meeting agenda?))
>
> About a month.
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/040556.html
>
> (28th of march)
>
> I have *always* (afaik) published in advance board meeting agendas.
>

Thank you for that reminder, and for clearly announcing board meetings in
advance, which has been helpful and reliable. You announced this one rather
farther in advance than just a week...

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-February/038858.html

I should have distinguished more clearly between the general overviews that
have been the more recent style, and the detailed on-wiki bullet-point
agendas that were once published in draft form (often long in advance;
suggestions for the next board agenda could be found and added to at any
time), explicitly open for discussion and suggestions, and revised publicly
by board members.

On-wiki agendas, notable primarily for being there well in advance and for
their obvious malleability:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_meeting_agendas&direction=prev&oldid=266996

I know that you intended for this to be a more open discussion of agenda
items and points of discussion; you said as much in February. And that you
have a tremendous amount on your plate. This is not a slam against you...
but the redlink to the April agenda from
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings#2008 was never filled in.
And I imagine that you and others may feel that, if you do not receive
aggressive input and replies, that the community does not care, and that it
hardly matters whether an agenda is made more public and advertised more
widely or not. But I assure you that we do care, and that it does matter,
and that this disconnect between those who care and those who speak to the
Board will grow as long as this isolation increases.

Explicitly open for discussion and suggestions:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings is not an input-friendly
page, does not link to agenda or minutes for the most recent meeting; and
its talk page points to a meta talk page that hasn't had meaningful
contributions since a query about why there weren't more recent updates,
from Aphaia, in July 2006. There are around 750 people subscribed to this
list -- a good number, but not close to the # of editors of meta.

Revised publicly by board members:
I never see anything but official announcements about Board meetings
these days, with the occasional brief email followup and neutral posting of
the text of resolutions. There is no life or discussion around the
resolutions, and community representatives on the Board rarely talk about
their thoughts beyond the formal notes, a silence made more remarkable when
controversy is at hand.
Perhaps I just don't know where to look, but even simple discussions
about what should or should not come up at a Board meeting, is now rare or
obfuscated.


To use the board restructuring as an example, the last rough-summary-agenda
you posted ("possible future council, next elections, professionalization of
board, etc...") did not at all suggest to me a resolution altering future
board composition might be in the works. I expected that the volunteer
council idea would receive feedback, the details of the upcoming elections
would be set (presumably for three positions, including the two newly
created community positions), and a public discussion of professionalization
of the board would follow -- something that has been alluded to many times
in the past without details and which would no doubt give rise to
interesting and illuminating discussions once the board's initial thoughts
on the matter were shared.

This is different from what actually was discussed in a few ways, and anyone
who had feedback to offer on the dramatic restructuring that was actually
proposed and later resolved would not have had warning to offer that
feedback. I do not think I am the only one who was surprised by Jan-Bart's
recent announcement despite the agenda precis.

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Birgitte, I think I agree with most of what you write. Some specific
comments:

Birgitte SB wrote:
> If there had been a large discussion on board restructuring before the
meeting I doubt that the current compromise would have even been on the
table for us to discuss.

Why not?

> And let us not forget the numerous threads on board restructuring from
Florence which received little or no responses.

This seems to me a topic which is not very conducive to threads, but more to
revision of specific proposals with attention paid to details. At any rate,
see below for reciprocity re: the lack of response from the Board to the
Volunter council discussion. This is not lack of interest, it is lack of
communication.

> If there had been a discussion beforehand, I think it would have focused
on
> extreme positions rather than anything close to a workable compromise.

Perhaps so. One could say the same thing about making changes to the
mission and vision statements.

> And most board members would not share on this list what issues are
> deal-breakers for them, so we would be unable to offer anything specific
for a
> proposal that would having any hope of passing.

I should hope this is not the case -- why do you say it is? Hopefully they
will at least share on this list whether or not this is true :-)
@ Board members : are you wary of sharing your true positions on delicate
issues on this list? Why or why not?

> And I think in general, community concerns over the board have been
discussed
> enough in the past to ensure the board was not uniformed.

Perhaps. The same concerns led to the proposal of a volunteer council, with
apparently more legwork and discussion than was given to the new board
proposal, and the board hasn't given much feedback there. It isn't that
the presented proposal is terrible, it is that absent strong indication that
such a resolution was in the works, it is far too significant to have been
made without notice.

If you think the core issue here is deciding on a set of rules for board
membership that most rules-lawyers won't disagree with too much, I think you
are pursuing a red herring. The issue here is community empowerment, not
just through the board, but through engagement in the process that brought
about new bylaws. The loss is a community that feels incrementally
disempowered. The benefit of a vibrant discussion, even one involving flame
wars and extreme positions, is almost independent of the impact it has on
the final decision : it inspires those who care about the future of
Wikimedia and the projects to take an active role in discussing their
future.

The misfortune here is that, despite the thousands of Wiki[mp]edians who
care deeply about community governance, we were somehow not able to generate
a lively and informative discussion about altering our own must central
governing body.

> On the other hand, I do not see why the board cannot treat the current
proposal as
> in a "community comment period" right now before making the actual
amendment
> to the by-laws.

Perhaps this is how it was meant. That would be an excellent update to the
announcement.

SJ

> For one thing I would suggest that the "expertise" seats constitute
> "up to four seats" rather require four seats to always be filled.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is curious too - the page on the Advisory Board says they will be asked
for advice about organizational development, among other things, but Angela
says that she has not (or never?) received or forwarded requests for advice.
Can we conclude that the Advisory Board is not necessary, or that with the
professionalizing effort the Advisory Board is just not as necessary as it
once might have been? Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but I'll admit
I thought that the Advisory Board was playing at least some role.

Nathan

On 4/27/08, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [4] is there a public place to contact our advisors?
>
>
> Anyone who wants to contact the advisory board is welcome to go
> through me for that. I can either forward messages to the whole group,
> or pass on contact details for specific members who might be able to
> help. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board
>
>
> > if not, can someone forward this to them?
>
>
> I have forwarded your email to the advisory board members. However, I
> should point out that they were not asked about this either and know
> less about it that readers of this mailing list. All I get from the
> board of trustees is announcements after they've made their decisions
> behind closed doors, not any requests for advice.
>
>
> Angela
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hello,

I am not quite sure how to voice that in a diplomatic fashion.

But... what is the expertise provided by the Advisory Board regarding
the WMF 4 years relationships with the Wikimedia chapters ?

Ant

Nathan wrote:
> This is curious too - the page on the Advisory Board says they will be asked
> for advice about organizational development, among other things, but Angela
> says that she has not (or never?) received or forwarded requests for advice.
> Can we conclude that the Advisory Board is not necessary, or that with the
> professionalizing effort the Advisory Board is just not as necessary as it
> once might have been? Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but I'll admit
> I thought that the Advisory Board was playing at least some role.
>
> Nathan
>
> On 4/27/08, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [4] is there a public place to contact our advisors?
>>
>> Anyone who wants to contact the advisory board is welcome to go
>> through me for that. I can either forward messages to the whole group,
>> or pass on contact details for specific members who might be able to
>> help. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board
>>
>>
>>> if not, can someone forward this to them?
>>
>> I have forwarded your email to the advisory board members. However, I
>> should point out that they were not asked about this either and know
>> less about it that readers of this mailing list. All I get from the
>> board of trustees is announcements after they've made their decisions
>> behind closed doors, not any requests for advice.
>>
>>
>> Angela
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is curious too - the page on the Advisory Board says they will be asked
> for advice about organizational development, among other things, but Angela
> says that she has not (or never?) received or forwarded requests for advice.

Not never; just not as often as I'd like. People from the advisory
board have been involved in various things (fundraising, wikimania,
swot analysis, etc) but there's a long list of areas I wished they had
been consulted on and simply weren't. I have emailed them offlist
about this, so I won't say anything more here.

Angela

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ant,

I guess I don't really know, but then again I'm not on the Advisory Board
;-) I imagine they have experience with board composition and restructuring,
experience with relations between organizations and affiliates etc. I was
more curious about the work that the Advisory Board does in general, and I'm
relieved by Angela's last response that clarifies that the Advisory Board is
indeed involved - just not on this issue.

Separately, while the interaction between the Board and the community is one
that does not satisfy everyone... I do thank you for your responsiveness on
this list (and also of course the other Board members like Michael Snow who
have remained involved in discussions on Foundation-l). Your work and
willingness to interact is appreciated by all.

Thanks,

Nathan

On 4/27/08, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am not quite sure how to voice that in a diplomatic fashion.
>
> But... what is the expertise provided by the Advisory Board regarding
> the WMF 4 years relationships with the Wikimedia chapters ?
>
> Ant
>
>
> Nathan wrote:
> > This is curious too - the page on the Advisory Board says they will be
> asked
> > for advice about organizational development, among other things, but
> Angela
> > says that she has not (or never?) received or forwarded requests for
> advice.
> > Can we conclude that the Advisory Board is not necessary, or that with
> the
> > professionalizing effort the Advisory Board is just not as necessary as
> it
> > once might have been? Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but I'll
> admit
> > I thought that the Advisory Board was playing at least some role.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > On 4/27/08, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> [4] is there a public place to contact our advisors?
> >>
> >> Anyone who wants to contact the advisory board is welcome to go
> >> through me for that. I can either forward messages to the whole group,
> >> or pass on contact details for specific members who might be able to
> >> help. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board
> >>
> >>
> >>> if not, can someone forward this to them?
> >>
> >> I have forwarded your email to the advisory board members. However, I
> >> should point out that they were not asked about this either and know
> >> less about it that readers of this mailing list. All I get from the
> >> board of trustees is announcements after they've made their decisions
> >> behind closed doors, not any requests for advice.
> >>
> >>
> >> Angela
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think I've never been in conflicts of interest, but at least some of
them are very nice to respond a random Wikimedian (me!) question by
email like "Hi, I've recently seen you on foundation-l and I know you
as a member of Wikimedia AB. I think you have expertise to help
solving our project issues of [a project name]. Would you mind giving
me some pointers we can dig out this topic and make a good solution?"
Having a pool of expertise is nice, isn't it?

And I would add, a AB member helped greatly us last year, and the
recent annoucement suggests the relationship between another org which
was established through last year election process is healthily
maintained.

Just a thought.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am not quite sure how to voice that in a diplomatic fashion.
>
> But... what is the expertise provided by the Advisory Board regarding
> the WMF 4 years relationships with the Wikimedia chapters ?
>
> Ant
>
>
>
> Nathan wrote:
> > This is curious too - the page on the Advisory Board says they will be asked
> > for advice about organizational development, among other things, but Angela
> > says that she has not (or never?) received or forwarded requests for advice.
> > Can we conclude that the Advisory Board is not necessary, or that with the
> > professionalizing effort the Advisory Board is just not as necessary as it
> > once might have been? Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but I'll admit
> > I thought that the Advisory Board was playing at least some role.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > On 4/27/08, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> [4] is there a public place to contact our advisors?
> >>
> >> Anyone who wants to contact the advisory board is welcome to go
> >> through me for that. I can either forward messages to the whole group,
> >> or pass on contact details for specific members who might be able to
> >> help. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board
> >>
> >>
> >>> if not, can someone forward this to them?
> >>
> >> I have forwarded your email to the advisory board members. However, I
> >> should point out that they were not asked about this either and know
> >> less about it that readers of this mailing list. All I get from the
> >> board of trustees is announcements after they've made their decisions
> >> behind closed doors, not any requests for advice.
> >>
> >>
> >> Angela
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The advisory board has extensive experience in the management of
organizations like the WMF, many of its members have had experienced
board restructurings and shufflings. Their expertise should have been
consulted on this matter.

I'm looking through the Advisory Board's expertise and I'm
flabbergasted that they weren't consulted.

Angela- experience with the WMF Board, and dealing with the chapters.
Heather Ford - "bringing together the various 'streams' of the global
commons movement" sounds very much like the WMF's relationship with
Chapters
Debbie Garside- Committee work and work with ISO is extremely relevant
to chapters.
Danny Hillis- Has experience with other boards of directors,
Mitch Kapor- Has experience with other boards of directors, including
some that have chapter like structures.
Teemu leinonen- work with UNESCO and other organizations can be
related to working with chapters.
Rebecca MacKinnon- Work with CNN, substitute bureaus for chapters and
you have a similar thing.
Wayne Mackintosh- Commonwealth of Learning has a chapter-like
organization
Benjamin Mako Hill- Has experience with other boards of directors
Erin McKean- Has experience with other boards of directors
Trevor Neilson- Has experience with other boards of directors, work
with GBC is very chapterlike.
Clay Shirky - Bolding for emphasis- My interests relevant to Wikimedia
are social software generally, and in particular governance problems;
what changes in coordination costs for groups do to the economics of
information production; and the design of federated networks.
Peter Suber- serves on several boards of directors
Raoul Weiler- other boards of directors experience, chairs a chapter
of a different organization.


At the very least, Angela should have been consulted, along with Clay
Shirky (in his field of expertise), possibly Raoul Weiler (regarding
chapters), and several of the listed above members who have experience
working on other boards, as well as chapter-like organizations.

I have no idea how you can say the advisory board has no expertise on
this matter. This is the very definition of an issue that should be
presented for them.

-Dan


On Apr 27, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am not quite sure how to voice that in a diplomatic fashion.
>
> But... what is the expertise provided by the Advisory Board regarding
> the WMF 4 years relationships with the Wikimedia chapters ?
>
> Ant
>
> Nathan wrote:
>> This is curious too - the page on the Advisory Board says they will
>> be asked
>> for advice about organizational development, among other things,
>> but Angela
>> says that she has not (or never?) received or forwarded requests
>> for advice.
>> Can we conclude that the Advisory Board is not necessary, or that
>> with the
>> professionalizing effort the Advisory Board is just not as
>> necessary as it
>> once might have been? Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but
>> I'll admit
>> I thought that the Advisory Board was playing at least some role.
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>> On 4/27/08, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> [4] is there a public place to contact our advisors?
>>>
>>> Anyone who wants to contact the advisory board is welcome to go
>>> through me for that. I can either forward messages to the whole
>>> group,
>>> or pass on contact details for specific members who might be able to
>>> help. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board
>>>
>>>
>>>> if not, can someone forward this to them?
>>>
>>> I have forwarded your email to the advisory board members.
>>> However, I
>>> should point out that they were not asked about this either and know
>>> less about it that readers of this mailing list. All I get from the
>>> board of trustees is announcements after they've made their
>>> decisions
>>> behind closed doors, not any requests for advice.
>>>
>>>
>>> Angela
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> foundation-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board restructuring and community
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 8:37 PM
> Birgitte, I think I agree with most of what you write. Some
> specific
> comments:
>
> Birgitte SB wrote:
> > If there had been a large discussion on board
> restructuring before the
> meeting I doubt that the current compromise would have even
> been on the
> table for us to discuss.
>
> Why not?

Because I do not believe it existed before the actual meeting and we could not have developed a compromise in this direction not knowing the frank opinions and deal-breakers of the board members.

>
> > And let us not forget the numerous threads on board
> restructuring from
> Florence which received little or no responses.
>
> This seems to me a topic which is not very conducive to
> threads, but more to
> revision of specific proposals with attention paid to
> details. At any rate,
> see below for reciprocity re: the lack of response from the
> Board to the
> Volunter council discussion. This is not lack of interest,
> it is lack of
> communication.

I think this is partly due to the "single voice" theory that WMF is currently subscribing to and partly due to the fact that specific proposals developed in advance do not seem to workable in the current political environment. Regarding the latter, I notice that there is consistently strong opposition to any specifically proposed changes. Whether it is due the actual merits of proposal or more about opposing the faction who wrote the proposal, I cannot always determine. In any event it appears to me that the only way things can actually be achieved is through adhoc proposals that are adopted before there is chance for them to spun by the court gossip so to speak. Please don't read this as an excuse to shut out community input, but rather simply my speculation on the realities of the political situation where there appears to be no hope of a coalition and little trust. I still think we can accept the situation, be supportive that the board has managed
to find this compromise rather digging their heels in and bickering by proxy, and expect them to be receptive to community input and willing to make further updates based on the input now being given.

>
> > If there had been a discussion beforehand, I think it
> would have focused
> on
> > extreme positions rather than anything close to a
> workable compromise.
>
> Perhaps so. One could say the same thing about making
> changes to the
> mission and vision statements.

I don't believe there ever were the opposing positions on those statements as their are on several of the issues here.

>
> > And most board members would not share on this list
> what issues are
> > deal-breakers for them, so we would be unable to offer
> anything specific
> for a
> > proposal that would having any hope of passing.
>
> I should hope this is not the case -- why do you say it is?
> Hopefully they
> will at least share on this list whether or not this is
> true :-)
> @ Board members : are you wary of sharing your true
> positions on delicate
> issues on this list? Why or why not?

SJ do you seriously doubt this?? I suppose I say this because it is consistent with my past observations (which is pretty why I say everything in emails like this as no one is feeding me any information). What past behavior of board members, outside of Anthere, would lead you to believe they would frankly outline what their personal deal-breakers are in this area?

>
> > And I think in general, community concerns over the
> board have been
> discussed
> > enough in the past to ensure the board was not
> uniformed.
>
> Perhaps. The same concerns led to the proposal of a
> volunteer council, with
> apparently more legwork and discussion than was given to
> the new board
> proposal, and the board hasn't given much feedback
> there. It isn't that
> the presented proposal is terrible, it is that absent
> strong indication that
> such a resolution was in the works, it is far too
> significant to have been
> made without notice.

I feel Anthere and Micheal gave some good feedback there. Personally I think you give more credit to the planning of this resolution than I do.

>
> If you think the core issue here is deciding on a set of
> rules for board
> membership that most rules-lawyers won't disagree with
> too much, I think you
> are pursuing a red herring. The issue here is community
> empowerment, not
> just through the board, but through engagement in the
> process that brought
> about new bylaws. The loss is a community that feels
> incrementally
> disempowered. The benefit of a vibrant discussion, even
> one involving flame
> wars and extreme positions, is almost independent of the
> impact it has on
> the final decision : it inspires those who care about the
> future of
> Wikimedia and the projects to take an active role in
> discussing their
> future.
>
> The misfortune here is that, despite the thousands of
> Wiki[mp]edians who
> care deeply about community governance, we were somehow not
> able to generate
> a lively and informative discussion about altering our own
> must central
> governing body.

I'm not sure the core issue is either of those things. I think the core issue is much more about practicality. My speculation: They needed a treasurer. They couldn't find one in the community so they had appoint one. They looked to the future of how Stu's seat should work out which brought up the previously tabled discussion of the size of the board. At the same time they looked over the VC proposal. They dislike the tying of it legally to WMF; so they rejected it. They saw that rejecting the of VC and the appointing of an outsider announced together could be read as anti-community. There was someone who strongly insisted an expanded board to have a majority come from the community. Someone else who distrusts the results of the last election refused to increase the number of seats elected in that manner. The "chapter compromise" was reached. The poor workings in the appointing a new treasurer in a timely manner was discussed. The "nominating
committee" solution was worked out. As long as they are reworking the whole structure they have deal with Jimmy's seat and the standing disagreements about it; compromise was reached.

As I see it the core issues in the restructuring were the previous discussed need to expand the board, the poor functioning of the treasurer search (in timely sense, not a dis of Stu), keeping the board connected to the community, avoiding having "untrustworthy people" elected to the board.

That you wish the core issue of this thread to focus on one of those issues does not mean the other issues were not a factor and that it is a red herring for me to discuss them. Of course my speculation could be wrong and I could be following a red herring in that regard. But I do not think that is what you meant. But despite all this back in forth, I do not disagree with you all that much. I do think you adopting an purposely naive position to make a point, where I would rather stick to things that realistic given the WMF as it currently exists.

>
> > On the other hand, I do not see why the board cannot
> treat the current
> proposal as
> > in a "community comment period" right now
> before making the actual
> amendment
> > to the by-laws.
>
> Perhaps this is how it was meant. That would be an
> excellent update to the
> announcement.

I hope the board can see the advantage to this approach however it was meant.

Birgitte SB


>
> SJ
>
> > For one thing I would suggest that the
> "expertise" seats constitute
> > "up to four seats" rather require four seats
> to always be filled.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effe iets anders wrote:
> Yesterday the Board announced a major change in the bylaws and power
> structure. Although I see some positive aspects in the change from my
> personal point of view (I have still not seen the official changes -
> as you might know by now, I am for balance - so until then I can't be
> definitive about that), let me summarize what is happening here:
> Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> chapter seats (it has always been announced that Domas' and Michaels
> chair were intended to become community seats too) and two expert
> seats were added, bringing down the community share in the board from
> 71% to 50% or 30% (depending whether you count chapter seats as
> community seats) of course assuming that the expert seats will be
> filled too.
>
I take to heart your comments about the lack of soliciting feedback.
Some elements of the idea I had previously discussed with people
(community, chapters, staff), including in my election campaign last
year, and generally the responses I received were positive. I don't
recall it being a topic on this list, though. The responses here to the
Volunteer Council proposal illustrate some of the challenges of getting
useful feedback that way. I followed that closely and had difficulty
coming away with a useful take-home message, amid the various criticisms
and diffusion of counter-proposals or suggested modifications.
> I think this restructuring of the Board only shows once more why we
> need a Wikicouncil. The Board itself is apperently not able to ask
> input herself on big decisions, and this sets a very bad precedent to
> the future. Apperently the Board is in need of some kind of council
> that is, in contrary to the few community members left in the board,
> able to bring through the questions to the communities. Maybe the VC
> would not function perfectly, but from what I am seeing now, it would
> at least do a much better job, because of course this is a very sad
> day for community involvement in the Wikimedia Movement.
>
> So please, Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe Jimmy
> too), let's just be fair and state your opinion. What is *your*
> thought about community involvement. Should community only be allowed
> to say something every two years? Should community only be allowed to
> say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting, btw)? Do
> you think community members could be smart people who have a smart
> opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they might come up
> with arguments you did not think of yet?
>
> If you think so, you should start working, in one way or another, on
> some kind of platform that is able to improve your attempts to contact
> the community on major decisions. And no, I have no ready-boiled plan
> for it, but I do know that there is a catalyst out there, that could
> come up with a nice result. That catalyst consists of a group of
> dedicated people, with a wide range of views, that could maybe come up
> with something that is actually good.
>
Lodewijk, I'm very glad to see that you've changed your labels to
recognize that the catalyst should be the people working on the
proposal, instead of waiting for the board to be the catalyst as you
were putting it previously. I think it likely that if the board creates
a council, that will end up defining its relationship to the community
and the world at large, and it will be perceived as a creature
(literally, "thing created") of the board. If so, it would lose nearly
all the value hoped for in its development. On the other hand, if the
community creates a council, then I would certainly want to be aware of
its perspective on foundation issues, and I expect other board members
would as well.

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/4/28 Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net>:
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
> > Yesterday the Board announced a major change in the bylaws and power
> > structure. Although I see some positive aspects in the change from my
> > personal point of view (I have still not seen the official changes -
> > as you might know by now, I am for balance - so until then I can't be
> > definitive about that), let me summarize what is happening here:
> > Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> > been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> > chapter seats (it has always been announced that Domas' and Michaels
> > chair were intended to become community seats too) and two expert
> > seats were added, bringing down the community share in the board from
> > 71% to 50% or 30% (depending whether you count chapter seats as
> > community seats) of course assuming that the expert seats will be
> > filled too.
> >
> >
> I take to heart your comments about the lack of soliciting feedback. Some
> elements of the idea I had previously discussed with people (community,
> chapters, staff), including in my election campaign last year, and generally
> the responses I received were positive. I don't recall it being a topic on
> this list, though. The responses here to the Volunteer Council proposal
> illustrate some of the challenges of getting useful feedback that way. I
> followed that closely and had difficulty coming away with a useful take-home
> message, amid the various criticisms and diffusion of counter-proposals or
> suggested modifications.
>
>
> > I think this restructuring of the Board only shows once more why we
> > need a Wikicouncil. The Board itself is apperently not able to ask
> > input herself on big decisions, and this sets a very bad precedent to
> > the future. Apperently the Board is in need of some kind of council
> > that is, in contrary to the few community members left in the board,
> > able to bring through the questions to the communities. Maybe the VC
> > would not function perfectly, but from what I am seeing now, it would
> > at least do a much better job, because of course this is a very sad
> > day for community involvement in the Wikimedia Movement.
> >
> > So please, Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe Jimmy
> > too), let's just be fair and state your opinion. What is *your*
> > thought about community involvement. Should community only be allowed
> > to say something every two years? Should community only be allowed to
> > say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting, btw)? Do
> > you think community members could be smart people who have a smart
> > opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they might come up
> > with arguments you did not think of yet?
> >
> > If you think so, you should start working, in one way or another, on
> > some kind of platform that is able to improve your attempts to contact
> > the community on major decisions. And no, I have no ready-boiled plan
> > for it, but I do know that there is a catalyst out there, that could
> > come up with a nice result. That catalyst consists of a group of
> > dedicated people, with a wide range of views, that could maybe come up
> > with something that is actually good.
> >
> >
> Lodewijk, I'm very glad to see that you've changed your labels to recognize
> that the catalyst should be the people working on the proposal, instead of
> waiting for the board to be the catalyst as you were putting it previously.
> I think it likely that if the board creates a council, that will end up
> defining its relationship to the community and the world at large, and it
> will be perceived as a creature (literally, "thing created") of the board.
> If so, it would lose nearly all the value hoped for in its development. On
> the other hand, if the community creates a council, then I would certainly
> want to be aware of its perspective on foundation issues, and I expect other
> board members would as well.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
Hi Michael,

thanks for your email. I don't want to be rude, but could you please
also try to more explicitely answer my questions? Thanks :)

Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I fully agree with what you write below and this is I believe the only way
out is creation of closed groups which would PREPARE a
dreaft/resolution/whatever on a single issue. With some input from the
community, yes, but without a simple vote, because everything gets voted
down or gets just stuck undecided. Then the resolution can be voted by the
Board.

Cheers
Yaroslav

> I think this is partly due to the "single voice" theory that WMF is
> currently subscribing to and partly due to the fact that specific
> proposals developed in advance do not seem to workable in the current
> political environment. Regarding the latter, I notice that there is
> consistently strong opposition to any specifically proposed changes.
> Whether it is due the actual merits of proposal or more about opposing the
> faction who wrote the proposal, I cannot always determine. In any event
> it appears to me that the only way things can actually be achieved is
> through adhoc proposals that are adopted before there is chance for them
> to spun by the court gossip so to speak. Please don't read this as an
> excuse to shut out community input, but rather simply my speculation on
> the realities of the political situation where there appears to be no hope
> of a coalition and little trust. I still think we can accept the
> situation, be supportive that the board has managed
> to find this compromise rather digging their heels in and bickering by
> proxy, and expect them to be receptive to community input and willing to
> make further updates based on the input now being given.
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effe iets anders wrote:
> Dear Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe Jimmy too)
>
> Yesterday the Board announced a major change in the bylaws and power
> structure. Although I see some positive aspects in the change from my
> personal point of view (I have still not seen the official changes -
> as you might know by now, I am for balance - so until then I can't be
> definitive about that), let me summarize what is happening here:
> Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> chapter seats (it has always been announced that Domas' and Michaels
> chair were intended to become community seats too) and two expert
> seats were added, bringing down the community share in the board from
> 71% to 50% or 30% (depending whether you count chapter seats as
> community seats) of course assuming that the expert seats will be
> filled too.
>
> This is quite a huge change with a huge impact on the power structure
> of the Wikimedia Foundation and therefore of the Wikimedia Movement.
> And this has been done without asking even advice to the community or
> the chapters? I find this a very strange procedure for a movement as
> the ours, and I am for the second time in a row very much
> disappointed. This time by all community Board Members, who - all of
> them! - dit NOT contact the community or chapters for a view!
>
> I would very much like an explanation from every board member why they
> have chosen not to ask the opinion of the community. Because you're
> not going to sell me the story that this idea was totally new on the
> board meeting, and that you had no time. Because this was of course
> already on the agenda of the meeting: "We plan to dedicate saturday to
> board development and governance. This will include relationships and
> contractual agreement between board and executive director, possible
> future council, next elections, professionalization of board, etc..."
> (quote from Florence's email announcing the coming up Board meeting)
>
> And please don't tell me either that the only "platform" there is, the
> foundation-l, does not function any more. Although that statement
> would be true to some extent, but it would highly puzzle me why the
> heck you have concluded from the new layout of the board to *not* need
> a Volunteer Council of *any* shape any more. Why you do not even want
> to encourage the research after the possibilities any more... Let me
> quote from your FAQ: "* `What does this [The restructuring of the
> board, LG] mean for the 'wikicouncil?' - The "wikicouncil" and
> "volunteer council" were part of the board discussions about its
> restructure. At this stage, we have decided to not take action on the
> proposal to develop a Volunteer Council. (...)"
>
> I think this restructuring of the Board only shows once more why we
> need a Wikicouncil. The Board itself is apperently not able to ask
> input herself on big decisions, and this sets a very bad precedent to
> the future. Apperently the Board is in need of some kind of council
> that is, in contrary to the few community members left in the board,
> able to bring through the questions to the communities. Maybe the VC
> would not function perfectly, but from what I am seeing now, it would
> at least do a much better job, because of course this is a very sad
> day for community involvement in the Wikimedia Movement.
>
> So please, Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe Jimmy
> too), let's just be fair and state your opinion. What is *your*
> thought about community involvement. Should community only be allowed
> to say something every two years? Should community only be allowed to
> say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting, btw)? Do
> you think community members could be smart people who have a smart
> opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they might come up
> with arguments you did not think of yet?
>
> If you think so, you should start working, in one way or another, on
> some kind of platform that is able to improve your attempts to contact
> the community on major decisions. And no, I have no ready-boiled plan
> for it, but I do know that there is a catalyst out there, that could
> come up with a nice result. That catalyst consists of a group of
> dedicated people, with a wide range of views, that could maybe come up
> with something that is actually good.
>
> If you think this all is no longer needed, then please say so, then we
> know what we're up to.
>
> I know it is not customary (unfortunately) any more that single Board
> members speak up. However, in this case I find it very important not
> to hear the Boards voice any more, but the individual's voice. Because
> that is highly important to be able to choose between people in
> elections and "chapter appointments". Is it not on a short term, then
> it will be in a year, but there will be a moment, and I would like to
> know who I am dealing with here. As I said before, I am disappointed
> in you, and that means that I had a better impression of you.
>
> Regards, and looking forward to all your replies,
>
> Lodewijk

Well,

Point by point:

"This time by all community Board Members, who - all of them! - dit NOT
contact the community or chapters for a view! "

-> Whilst it is true that the issue was not raised on this list, I also
think there is no way you may know who I am talking to and about what.
The concept of having chapters have a say in board composition has been
boiling for many months. I know the proposition did not come out of the
blue and I know I discussed it with some community members and chapter
members in the past.
So, whilst I will accept the criticism that we ought to have discussed
that here or in other places, I will not accept the criticism that I did
not contact *anyone* for a view.

-------

"Should community only be allowed
> to say something every two years? Should community only be allowed to
> say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting, btw)? Do
> you think community members could be smart people who have a smart
> opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they might come up
> with arguments you did not think of yet?"

-> I think my frequent attempts to raise issues on this list are
sufficient to answer these questions.
Some of my attempts were successful, some were near flops.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Values&action=history
It takes a quite serious energy to keep informing and asking for
feedback when most of the time, there is little comment.

-------

"you should start working, in one way or another, on some kind of
platform that is able to improve your attempts to contact the community
on major decisions"

-> Given that I was the one to revive the wikicouncil discussion several
times in the past, I think that it is could be sufficient as an answer.
I also several times pointed out that we needed a better plateform for
discussion. And no, unfortunately, I have no secret recipe either. I
wish I have. I still like the wikicouncil idea and I hope it will happen
in the future. If not globally, wikicouncil per project might be cool.

-> On another note, we have indicated several times in the past our need
for a poll plateform. If my memory is good, Erik is working on
something. But yeah, we still have no poll plateform. Now, the question
is as to whether this is the job of the board to develop such a
plateform, or if the community could somehow participate to the effort.
I am very happy to see "reactions" today. It would be great of
"reactions" would also transform in "actions".

-> I also remember with great delights the email sent to be the
wikicommons wishlist (technical features). I was amazed and impressed.
And I invited each community to do the same. Again, a flop. We did not
receive anything. One may argue that "why would we write a wish list
when features are not implemented afterwards" ?
I would answer that communication is never easy. It takes efforts and
efforts should come from all parties. Sometimes the effort lead nowhere.
Sometimes, it goes somewhere but with delay (much delay, eg the SUL).
And sometimes it generates something wonderful.

-> A long time ago, Sj and I started the Quarto. We have received help
from many individuals and it was great working together. But let's face
it, this type of initiative can only work if enough people are
sufficiently committed to them, so that the workload is evenly
distributed. We stopped because of unsufficient human support.

-> More recently, last winter, Erik set up a fundraising blog. As far as
I could say, it was very successful. There were many posting and many
many comments. Following this path, Jay set up a staff blog where news
are announced and people have the opportunity to comment.
My main two criticisms about that blog is 1) that it is in english only,
and 2) that posting on it should go through the filter and correction of
the staff (which is why I will probably not post). But this is another
venue proposed, and if I look at the amount of comments, it has not met
much interest yet. But I am pretty sure it will over time.

-> In the past year and a half, there has been one board retreat, during
which people others than board members were invited. We also held an
advisory board meeting last summer and another is planned. There were
also various opportunities to meet face to face, in particular during
chapter meetings, where some board members made the efforts to travel
away from their home to meet editors. All these are difficult to handle
both because board members have a private life (limited time
opportunities) and it of course cost money (and is belatedly criticized
by the community), but they are very cool opportunities to discuss
things. Far beyond this very mailing list.

What else could we do ?
Surveys...
Create an island on Second Life...
Set up a forum (rather than a list)...
Re-create some committees...

etc.

There are many ideas. But only so much time available. And some much
energy. There are two main problems in my view.

One is that some board members hardly every communicate with the
community. If these were elected community members, I would dare to say
that this is the responsibility of the community to make sure they elect
members with good communication skills. And the responsibility of the
community to contact the board member if they feel the communication is
not sufficient.

The second is a way to not only communicate with community, but to make
sure that the answer we get is really representative of what the
community think. And not simply the grumbles of 2-3 isolated
individuals. Discussion on this list provides me with good ideas and
allow me to feel very unpopular decisions, but it does not provide me
with a good and accurate measure of what the community really think
globally. Neither would a wikicouncil.

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l