Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Bishakha Datta]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Christophe Henner 
wrote:
>
>
> 2. Time comitment. So on that, we are actively working on trying to reduce
> the mandatory time board members have to allocate to WMF. Goal is between
> this year and next year to lower it down to what we benchmarked as average
> (and I can't find the number again, I'll dig into that). That work started
> after a discussion with Guy on the fact that the time comitment was so high
> we migh scare away high profiles. So working to get mandatory board time
> down.
> But there's also "non-mandatory" time comitment. I can only speak for me,
> but right now, it takes me from 2h in the day up to 6h, almost everyday. I
> try to have Sundays when I don't work (either for my job or wikimedia). In
> that I do include reading (scanning for some mailing lists) emails.
>
> Right now, I think that the most complicated thing to handle is travel
> times as you need to take almost a week off every time we travel abroad.
> But until we invent teleportation (that would be super cool), I can't see a
> way to change that.
>
> This resonated so strongly I had to write in. I think you've nailed it -
it's not about money. It's about time.

And not just the mandatory time commitment, but also the non-mandatory time
commitment...the expectations we have of ourselves, the extra time we put
in not because it's compulsory - this isn't a job after all (although it
feels like a part-time one). But because it's hard to be an effective board
member without putting in that extra effort.

Much as I loved it, I often felt I was drowning when I was a board member.
I often found it really hard to flip my mind space and my mental energies
between my paid day job and my wikimedia commitments - and sometimes had to
put my day job on the backburner. Or family, friends, life, the universe
and everything. None of which is tenable beyond a point.

The other issue is the travel. Now that I'm an FDC member, I can see how
two in-person meetings a year versus four makes a huge difference. [And as
a related aside, the time commitment as an FDC member is way way more
manageable - and takes place in two big chunks, not as an everyday thing.]

It would be great if you'll could rethink the time and travel expected of
board members, so that the whole thing is less of a super-human endeavour.
:)

Good luck!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Pine W]

Christophe,

Thanks for the comments.

I think of WMF Board membership as being similar to ENWP Arbcom or some
event committee memberships in the sense that doing the roles well often
seems to require a near-martyrdom level of commitment. I'd like to see some
ceilings on workloads for volunteers, and that includes the WMF Board if
Board members aren't going to be compensated for their time. One way to
enable those ceilings to be realistic, as we've discussed in this thread,
is to provide support from paid staff for routine work, organizing
communications, preparing reports, writing grant requests, etc. I guess my
priorities in no particular order are that (1) work gets done in a timely
and reasonably high-quality manner, (2) people don't get burnt out. I'm in
favor of using funds to support the community in achieving those goals.

By the way, I'm also aware that taking on roles like WMF Board membership,
ENWP Arbcom, etc. means dealing with a seemingly endless string of
complaints and requests, and I appreciate your making efforts to do a good
job.

Pine


On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Christophe Henner 
wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Many topics covered here :)
>
> 1. Paid vs. unpaid: I don't know of the legal situation, but I always felt
> that for a NGO it is better to have a volunteer board. Especially for us as
> our movement is built thanks to volunteers. I fear it would slightly hinder
> our message if trustees were paid. But, when we need a specific expertise,
> then we can pay for it. But not as a trustee, as an expert helping us on a
> specific matter;
>
> 2. Time comitment. So on that, we are actively working on trying to reduce
> the mandatory time board members have to allocate to WMF. Goal is between
> this year and next year to lower it down to what we benchmarked as average
> (and I can't find the number again, I'll dig into that). That work started
> after a discussion with Guy on the fact that the time comitment was so high
> we migh scare away high profiles. So working to get mandatory board time
> down.
> But there's also "non-mandatory" time comitment. I can only speak for me,
> but right now, it takes me from 2h in the day up to 6h, almost everyday. I
> try to have Sundays when I don't work (either for my job or wikimedia). In
> that I do include reading (scanning for some mailing lists) emails.
>
> Right now, I think that the most complicated thing to handle is travel
> times as you need to take almost a week off every time we travel abroad.
> But until we invent teleportation (that would be super cool), I can't see a
> way to change that.
>
> 3. Staff support to the board : We already have some. First, as the
> treasurer and secretary roles are filled by staff members, it unburden
> board members a lot. On top of that, we also benefit from support from each
> department on a needs basis. Travels are taken care of by staff, I'm
> working on slides now, I could ask the communication department to help me
> on that. Anna and Michelle work a lot with Natalia on board recruitement.
>
> To be fair, staff does a lot of heavy lifting for us already.
>
> What is true however is that we don't have one personn fully assigned to
> support the board. But I'm not sure it is needed right now. That might be a
> discussion worth having.
>
> 4. Appointed seats "quality": yes we are looking for great board members.
> And that is also why we need more time than one could expect.
>
>
>
> Christophe HENNER
> Chair of the board of trustees
> chen...@wikimedia.org
> +33650664739
>
> twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1. Intrinsic motivation, at this point, appears to be inadequate for
> > increasing the population of the Wikimedia volunteer community. I am
> > skeptical that we should rely on the same mechanism which isn't working
> in
> > the volunteer community to fill slots on the WMF Board, which also seems
> to
> > be struggling to fill its ranks.
> >
> > 2. I think that there's some grey between fully intrinsic and fully
> > extrinsic motivation. For example, there are a number WMF employees to
> > which WMF pays $100,000+ compensation packages. Yet we don't complain
> that
> > their motivations are extrinsic and incompatible with the Wikimedia
> > mission. WMF pays them that level of compensation to encourage them to
> stay
> > with WMF instead of working for another organization (probably a
> for-profit
> > one) which would likely pay them similar levels of compensation. It seems
> > to me that if WMF is struggling to attract the quantity and quality of
> > Board members that it needs, then compensation is a reasonable option to
> > consider.
> >
> > Responding to Pete: although it's unusual for nonprofit board members to
> be
> > paid, as far as I can see the practice isn't forbidden. I imagine that
> WMF
> > Legal could provide guidance about what is and isn't allowed. Whether
> > whether 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Christophe

Thanks for that.  You write

we are actively working on trying to reduce
> the mandatory time board members have to allocate to WMF. Goal is between
> this year and next year to lower it down to what we benchmarked as average
> (and I can't find the number again, I'll dig into that).


The adverts you are already running say "the time commitment for standard
service is roughly 75 hours per year".  Presumaby you mean that you will
reduce it from that figure to some lower figure over the next year?

There are some optional activities that are already failing to get
sufficient effort to make them worthwhile: I'm thinking in particular of
dialogue at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard on Meta,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard
Perhaps you should bite the bullet here and close it down?  Already
previous and current Board members have commented that it was not
sustainable.  Of course I would encourage you to find some alternative
mechanism, one that you can and will sustain, for serious strategic
engagement between Board and Community.

"Rogol"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Christophe Henner]

Hey,

Many topics covered here :)

1. Paid vs. unpaid: I don't know of the legal situation, but I always felt
that for a NGO it is better to have a volunteer board. Especially for us as
our movement is built thanks to volunteers. I fear it would slightly hinder
our message if trustees were paid. But, when we need a specific expertise,
then we can pay for it. But not as a trustee, as an expert helping us on a
specific matter;

2. Time comitment. So on that, we are actively working on trying to reduce
the mandatory time board members have to allocate to WMF. Goal is between
this year and next year to lower it down to what we benchmarked as average
(and I can't find the number again, I'll dig into that). That work started
after a discussion with Guy on the fact that the time comitment was so high
we migh scare away high profiles. So working to get mandatory board time
down.
But there's also "non-mandatory" time comitment. I can only speak for me,
but right now, it takes me from 2h in the day up to 6h, almost everyday. I
try to have Sundays when I don't work (either for my job or wikimedia). In
that I do include reading (scanning for some mailing lists) emails.

Right now, I think that the most complicated thing to handle is travel
times as you need to take almost a week off every time we travel abroad.
But until we invent teleportation (that would be super cool), I can't see a
way to change that.

3. Staff support to the board : We already have some. First, as the
treasurer and secretary roles are filled by staff members, it unburden
board members a lot. On top of that, we also benefit from support from each
department on a needs basis. Travels are taken care of by staff, I'm
working on slides now, I could ask the communication department to help me
on that. Anna and Michelle work a lot with Natalia on board recruitement.

To be fair, staff does a lot of heavy lifting for us already.

What is true however is that we don't have one personn fully assigned to
support the board. But I'm not sure it is needed right now. That might be a
discussion worth having.

4. Appointed seats "quality": yes we are looking for great board members.
And that is also why we need more time than one could expect.



Christophe HENNER
Chair of the board of trustees
chen...@wikimedia.org
+33650664739

twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*



On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. Intrinsic motivation, at this point, appears to be inadequate for
> increasing the population of the Wikimedia volunteer community. I am
> skeptical that we should rely on the same mechanism which isn't working in
> the volunteer community to fill slots on the WMF Board, which also seems to
> be struggling to fill its ranks.
>
> 2. I think that there's some grey between fully intrinsic and fully
> extrinsic motivation. For example, there are a number WMF employees to
> which WMF pays $100,000+ compensation packages. Yet we don't complain that
> their motivations are extrinsic and incompatible with the Wikimedia
> mission. WMF pays them that level of compensation to encourage them to stay
> with WMF instead of working for another organization (probably a for-profit
> one) which would likely pay them similar levels of compensation. It seems
> to me that if WMF is struggling to attract the quantity and quality of
> Board members that it needs, then compensation is a reasonable option to
> consider.
>
> Responding to Pete: although it's unusual for nonprofit board members to be
> paid, as far as I can see the practice isn't forbidden. I imagine that WMF
> Legal could provide guidance about what is and isn't allowed. Whether
> whether it's allowed and whether it should actually happen are, of course,
> two different questions. A resource that I find instructive is
> https://www.asaecenter.org/resources/articles/an_plus/
> 2015/december/should-board-members-of-nonprofit-
> organizations-be-compensated,
> which provides a list of pros and cons for providing compensation to Board
> members. One of the points that they make is along similar lines as Lane's:
> that providing compensation could increase the diversity of candidates. A
> point that I think is also worth making is that if Board members are
> compensated then expectations should be proportionately greater for their
> performance and attendance to Board matters; I don't want anything like a
> repeat of the situation that happened with Lila in which the WMF Board
> seems to have been asleep at the wheel. Given that current Board members
> seem to be struggling with their workloads, I think that exploring the pros
> and cons of compensating WMF Board members is worth serious consideration.
>
> I like the idea of the Board having its own staff separate from the ED.
> This would be similar to how legislative bodies are supported by their own
> staff which is separate from the executive branch. If this kind of support
> would be adequate to address the pr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine,

By the same argument, then, the Foundation should be compensating the
unpaid volunteers who actually create the content of the projects, and
supporting them with the tools and resources they need to do that work.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. Intrinsic motivation, at this point, appears to be inadequate for
> increasing the population of the Wikimedia volunteer community. I am
> skeptical that we should rely on the same mechanism which isn't working in
> the volunteer community to fill slots on the WMF Board, which also seems to
> be struggling to fill its ranks.
>
> 2. I think that there's some grey between fully intrinsic and fully
> extrinsic motivation. For example, there are a number WMF employees to
> which WMF pays $100,000+ compensation packages. Yet we don't complain that
> their motivations are extrinsic and incompatible with the Wikimedia
> mission. WMF pays them that level of compensation to encourage them to stay
> with WMF instead of working for another organization (probably a for-profit
> one) which would likely pay them similar levels of compensation. It seems
> to me that if WMF is struggling to attract the quantity and quality of
> Board members that it needs, then compensation is a reasonable option to
> consider.
>
> Responding to Pete: although it's unusual for nonprofit board members to be
> paid, as far as I can see the practice isn't forbidden. I imagine that WMF
> Legal could provide guidance about what is and isn't allowed. Whether
> whether it's allowed and whether it should actually happen are, of course,
> two different questions. A resource that I find instructive is
> https://www.asaecenter.org/resources/articles/an_plus/
> 2015/december/should-board-members-of-nonprofit-
> organizations-be-compensated,
> which provides a list of pros and cons for providing compensation to Board
> members. One of the points that they make is along similar lines as Lane's:
> that providing compensation could increase the diversity of candidates. A
> point that I think is also worth making is that if Board members are
> compensated then expectations should be proportionately greater for their
> performance and attendance to Board matters; I don't want anything like a
> repeat of the situation that happened with Lila in which the WMF Board
> seems to have been asleep at the wheel. Given that current Board members
> seem to be struggling with their workloads, I think that exploring the pros
> and cons of compensating WMF Board members is worth serious consideration.
>
> I like the idea of the Board having its own staff separate from the ED.
> This would be similar to how legislative bodies are supported by their own
> staff which is separate from the executive branch. If this kind of support
> would be adequate to address the problems of Board recruitment (which I
> doubt) then I'd say to go for it. It might be worthwhile exploring this
> option in tandem with exploring the option of compensating Board members.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Pine W]

Hi James,

Two points:

1. Intrinsic motivation, at this point, appears to be inadequate for
increasing the population of the Wikimedia volunteer community. I am
skeptical that we should rely on the same mechanism which isn't working in
the volunteer community to fill slots on the WMF Board, which also seems to
be struggling to fill its ranks.

2. I think that there's some grey between fully intrinsic and fully
extrinsic motivation. For example, there are a number WMF employees to
which WMF pays $100,000+ compensation packages. Yet we don't complain that
their motivations are extrinsic and incompatible with the Wikimedia
mission. WMF pays them that level of compensation to encourage them to stay
with WMF instead of working for another organization (probably a for-profit
one) which would likely pay them similar levels of compensation. It seems
to me that if WMF is struggling to attract the quantity and quality of
Board members that it needs, then compensation is a reasonable option to
consider.

Responding to Pete: although it's unusual for nonprofit board members to be
paid, as far as I can see the practice isn't forbidden. I imagine that WMF
Legal could provide guidance about what is and isn't allowed. Whether
whether it's allowed and whether it should actually happen are, of course,
two different questions. A resource that I find instructive is
https://www.asaecenter.org/resources/articles/an_plus/2015/december/should-board-members-of-nonprofit-organizations-be-compensated,
which provides a list of pros and cons for providing compensation to Board
members. One of the points that they make is along similar lines as Lane's:
that providing compensation could increase the diversity of candidates. A
point that I think is also worth making is that if Board members are
compensated then expectations should be proportionately greater for their
performance and attendance to Board matters; I don't want anything like a
repeat of the situation that happened with Lila in which the WMF Board
seems to have been asleep at the wheel. Given that current Board members
seem to be struggling with their workloads, I think that exploring the pros
and cons of compensating WMF Board members is worth serious consideration.

I like the idea of the Board having its own staff separate from the ED.
This would be similar to how legislative bodies are supported by their own
staff which is separate from the executive branch. If this kind of support
would be adequate to address the problems of Board recruitment (which I
doubt) then I'd say to go for it. It might be worthwhile exploring this
option in tandem with exploring the option of compensating Board members.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Lane Rasberry]

Thanks for this.

If anyone needs context -

There are 10 board seats
- The Wikimedia community of editors votes for 3, with all three seats open
by 13 August 2017 at latest (WMF sets election date, no date set for
election yet)
- There are 2 chapter selected seats
- Natalia above is talking about the 4 appointed seats, plus recruitment
generally of volunteers on a board advisory group. 2 appointed seats are
vacant at present
- Jimbo +1 seat

In short - 5 of 10 seats will have new or reconfirmed trustees by 13 August
2017. Personally, I think things are on schedule considering the recent
past coming to this point.

Thanks Nataliia. I am glad to see the process working as designed.



On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have updates about the board recruiting process. As you may recall, March
> 6 was the original deadline for accepting submissions [1], but we need more
> time to develop more solid candidates. Our original deadlines were
> extremely ambitious, thus we decided to extend the deadline by two months.
> Here is an outline of the updated timeline:
>
>
>-
>
>Application and referral submission period (January 23 - May 6)
>-
>
>Application and referral review, proactive candidate recruitment, and
>interviews (January - June 5)
>-
>
>   Initial application review and screenings (January - May)
>   -
>
>   Board Governance Committee
>    Board_Governance_Committee>
>   (BGC) discussions with candidates (January - May)
>   -
>
>   BGC meets and makes short list (May)
>   -
>
>   Second-round interviews (May - June 5)
>   -
>
>  Background check conducted by BGC and Wikimedia Foundation staff
>  -
>
> Criminal and financial background check conducted by outside
> firm
> -
>
> Thorough review of online and public coverage of candidates
> -
>
>Executive Director and BGC meet to determine recommendations and provide
>recommendations to the full Board (June)
>-
>
>Board vote to confirm candidate (July)
>-
>
>Announcement of new candidates (mid-July)
>
>
> We decided to run this search ourselves, rather than going with a
> recruiting firm. If we need additional help, we’ll assess in one month and
> potentially discuss whether we need to look for external firms to support
> our recruitment efforts.
>
> As a reminder, applicants may apply online at:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us#Wikimedia_Careers. We
> also accept applications and referrals by email at
> board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org. The recruitment materials can be
> found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55283092 [2].
>
>
> I shall update the Meta page shortly [3].
>
> Please forward this information to people who are potentially interested in
> serving the Wikimedia movement on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
> (as of Jan 23)
>  Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_recruitment&oldid=16250784>
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_Board_
> Recruiting_Candidate_Packet.pdf
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like to announce that we are officially beginning recruitment
> for
> > two open appointed positions on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees.
> > This email will outline the process and timeline for the recruitment.
> >
> > The Board initially began discussions on recruitment in May-June 2016
> [1].
> > After a pause, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has renewed
> recruitment
> > for its vacant appointed seats and would love to share an update with you
> > today.
> >
> > With support from Anna Stillwell (from the Talent & Culture department)
> > and Michelle Paulson (our interim General Counsel), the BGC developed
> four
> > candidate profiles for the vacant and soon-to-be-vacant seats and gave
> its
> > recommendations to the Board in December 2016.
> >
> > During its December meeting, the Board decided that it hopes to find the
> > following types of experience and expertise:
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >Growing a global movement: apply
> > 3vh7tx1#.WIZGvrYrL-Y>
> >[2]
> >2.
> >
> >Engaging new communities: apply
> ><

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

In the last community election a Google employee, a physician, and a
Harvard business professor were selected. These are all higher income
professions. There were a range of reasons for this, but one commonality to
note was that the people favored by the community also might have been
people who were more highly paid than the competition. Probably all the
people elected last time had some kind of support staff under their
management, whether from a department of some sort or under their
leadership somehow. It is not as if any of the selected candidates were
rich, but it might be the case that the entire process makes board members
with a certain amount of money much more effective and influential than
those who are below a certain income level. In some cases, money is a sign
of a more effective leader, and in other cases, maybe it is possible for a
person to have less money but more important influence in other ways.

I like Pete's idea of the board being empowered to hire support staff,
which as far as I know does not currently happen. Besides outright pay
there could be other investments in the board, like for example, maybe
board members could share a secretary to help them schedule appointments to
hear comments from the Wikimedia community. Or maybe they could get funding
for a videographer to take statements from them from time to time, if that
helps them communicate board business more effectively to the Wikimedia
community. I think it is still the case that many board members get through
their terms without ever publishing a statement about what they as an
individual think or do, or if any individual records are kept, I am not
sure where to see them. Maybe board members should get a travel allotment
to do some wiki-diplomacy if they like, because being on the WMF board is
inherently empowering and someone who can pay their own travel can get all
sorts of negotiating opportunities for the Wikimedia community that a
person who cannot pay cannot. Maybe they could have a translation budget,
since they are elected to represent communities which need urgent access to
international conversations while one of their own is speaking in a
leadership role. I am not sure what the support should be but being wealthy
on an international scale should not be a prerequisite to getting the
fullness of the experience.

Pay might not be the exact solution but also diversity includes economic
diversity, and I do not want the board perpetually slanted to favor the
views of those better off financially without serious consideration of what
it is like to be on the board with less personal income.

I really do not want a board member's service halted because their time was
consumed otherwise over a small amount of money. Any inexpensive thing that
can be done to make someone's life and Wiki engagement a little more open
and easy should be done, because once someone is elected, suddenly the
community of many tens of thousands really depends on every hour they are
able to contribute.



On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Pine,
>
> It's unusual, and discouraged by the IRS (the United States' tax agency),
> for board members to be paid. I won't get into details, but I think this is
> a good thing, as it's tough to avoid conflict of interest when earning
> money from an entity you're seeking to get funding for. You can read a bit
> more here:
> https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/can-board-members-
> be-paid
>
> However, if board members have to spend substantial time in the course of
> their duties, that's something that could and should be solved. As I
> understand it, the board could pay support staff (roles like "assistant to
> the treasurer" or "assistant to the secretary"). They've already taken this
> route to some degree by appointing WMF staff to serve officer roles; this
> seems problematic to me, since as I understand it, the core function of
> board officers is to provide oversight over the organization's staff. (So
> it's odd to have a treasurer providing oversight over themselves.)
>
> But unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing that would prevent the board from
> hiring its own staff, as many as they deem appropriate, outside the
> organizational structure of the WMF, simply to support the work of the
> board members themselves.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Nataliia,
> >
> > Thanks for the update. An issue that keeps coming to my mind is whether
> WMF
> > would get higher-quality Board candidates, and whether candidates would
> > devote more time to Wikimedia matters, if Board membership was treated
> as a
> > part-time job and paid accordingly. Many people who have the kinds of
> > skills which are desirable for WMF Board membership can be paid
> (sometimes
> > very well) for their services. My understanding is that WMF Board
> > membership is far more involved than once-per-month meetings that might
> > ha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[James Heilman]

I disagree with the suggestion to pay members of the board. Payment does
not necessarily mean people will invest more time and a fair bit of
literature supports intrinsic motivation resulting in greater engagement
than extrinsic motivation. As most of our movement is not only composed of
volunteers but run by volunteers paying board members would likely increase
friction.

Best
James

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Nataliia,
>
> Thanks for the update. An issue that keeps coming to my mind is whether WMF
> would get higher-quality Board candidates, and whether candidates would
> devote more time to Wikimedia matters, if Board membership was treated as a
> part-time job and paid accordingly. Many people who have the kinds of
> skills which are desirable for WMF Board membership can be paid (sometimes
> very well) for their services. My understanding is that WMF Board
> membership is far more involved than once-per-month meetings that might
> happen at smaller organizations which might be able to more feasibly get
> volunteers for board roles due to the lower time requirements. Personally,
> I would rather have many high quality WMF Board members and have them doing
> Board work for 8+ hours per week and pay them accordingly, than have
> difficulty finding high quality Board members who are willing to invest the
> time required to do their jobs well. This might also help with the problems
> which were discussed in other threads regarding WMF Board members feeling
> like they lack adequate time to do their jobs adequately with the time that
> they have; if Board members are paid for their services then I expect that
> there will be less difficulty in this regard.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
>
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I have updates about the board recruiting process. As you may recall,
> March
> > 6 was the original deadline for accepting submissions [1], but we need
> more
> > time to develop more solid candidates. Our original deadlines were
> > extremely ambitious, thus we decided to extend the deadline by two
> months.
> > Here is an outline of the updated timeline:
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Application and referral submission period (January 23 - May 6)
> >-
> >
> >Application and referral review, proactive candidate recruitment, and
> >interviews (January - June 5)
> >-
> >
> >   Initial application review and screenings (January - May)
> >   -
> >
> >   Board Governance Committee
> >    > Board_Governance_Committee>
> >   (BGC) discussions with candidates (January - May)
> >   -
> >
> >   BGC meets and makes short list (May)
> >   -
> >
> >   Second-round interviews (May - June 5)
> >   -
> >
> >  Background check conducted by BGC and Wikimedia Foundation staff
> >  -
> >
> > Criminal and financial background check conducted by outside
> > firm
> > -
> >
> > Thorough review of online and public coverage of candidates
> > -
> >
> >Executive Director and BGC meet to determine recommendations and
> provide
> >recommendations to the full Board (June)
> >-
> >
> >Board vote to confirm candidate (July)
> >-
> >
> >Announcement of new candidates (mid-July)
> >
> >
> > We decided to run this search ourselves, rather than going with a
> > recruiting firm. If we need additional help, we’ll assess in one month
> and
> > potentially discuss whether we need to look for external firms to support
> > our recruitment efforts.
> >
> > As a reminder, applicants may apply online at:
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us#Wikimedia_Careers. We
> > also accept applications and referrals by email at
> > board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org. The recruitment materials can be
> > found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55283092 [2].
> >
> >
> > I shall update the Meta page shortly [3].
> >
> > Please forward this information to people who are potentially interested
> in
> > serving the Wikimedia movement on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > Trustees.
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
> > (as of Jan 23)
> >  > Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_recruitment&oldid=16250784>
> > [2]
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_Board_
> > Recruiting_Candidate_Packet.pdf
> > [3]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
> >
> > Best regards,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> >
> > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> working
> > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Pete Forsyth]

Pine,

It's unusual, and discouraged by the IRS (the United States' tax agency),
for board members to be paid. I won't get into details, but I think this is
a good thing, as it's tough to avoid conflict of interest when earning
money from an entity you're seeking to get funding for. You can read a bit
more here:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/can-board-members-be-paid

However, if board members have to spend substantial time in the course of
their duties, that's something that could and should be solved. As I
understand it, the board could pay support staff (roles like "assistant to
the treasurer" or "assistant to the secretary"). They've already taken this
route to some degree by appointing WMF staff to serve officer roles; this
seems problematic to me, since as I understand it, the core function of
board officers is to provide oversight over the organization's staff. (So
it's odd to have a treasurer providing oversight over themselves.)

But unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing that would prevent the board from
hiring its own staff, as many as they deem appropriate, outside the
organizational structure of the WMF, simply to support the work of the
board members themselves.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Nataliia,
>
> Thanks for the update. An issue that keeps coming to my mind is whether WMF
> would get higher-quality Board candidates, and whether candidates would
> devote more time to Wikimedia matters, if Board membership was treated as a
> part-time job and paid accordingly. Many people who have the kinds of
> skills which are desirable for WMF Board membership can be paid (sometimes
> very well) for their services. My understanding is that WMF Board
> membership is far more involved than once-per-month meetings that might
> happen at smaller organizations which might be able to more feasibly get
> volunteers for board roles due to the lower time requirements. Personally,
> I would rather have many high quality WMF Board members and have them doing
> Board work for 8+ hours per week and pay them accordingly, than have
> difficulty finding high quality Board members who are willing to invest the
> time required to do their jobs well. This might also help with the problems
> which were discussed in other threads regarding WMF Board members feeling
> like they lack adequate time to do their jobs adequately with the time that
> they have; if Board members are paid for their services then I expect that
> there will be less difficulty in this regard.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
>
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I have updates about the board recruiting process. As you may recall,
> March
> > 6 was the original deadline for accepting submissions [1], but we need
> more
> > time to develop more solid candidates. Our original deadlines were
> > extremely ambitious, thus we decided to extend the deadline by two
> months.
> > Here is an outline of the updated timeline:
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Application and referral submission period (January 23 - May 6)
> >-
> >
> >Application and referral review, proactive candidate recruitment, and
> >interviews (January - June 5)
> >-
> >
> >   Initial application review and screenings (January - May)
> >   -
> >
> >   Board Governance Committee
> >    > Board_Governance_Committee>
> >   (BGC) discussions with candidates (January - May)
> >   -
> >
> >   BGC meets and makes short list (May)
> >   -
> >
> >   Second-round interviews (May - June 5)
> >   -
> >
> >  Background check conducted by BGC and Wikimedia Foundation staff
> >  -
> >
> > Criminal and financial background check conducted by outside
> > firm
> > -
> >
> > Thorough review of online and public coverage of candidates
> > -
> >
> >Executive Director and BGC meet to determine recommendations and
> provide
> >recommendations to the full Board (June)
> >-
> >
> >Board vote to confirm candidate (July)
> >-
> >
> >Announcement of new candidates (mid-July)
> >
> >
> > We decided to run this search ourselves, rather than going with a
> > recruiting firm. If we need additional help, we’ll assess in one month
> and
> > potentially discuss whether we need to look for external firms to support
> > our recruitment efforts.
> >
> > As a reminder, applicants may apply online at:
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us#Wikimedia_Careers. We
> > also accept applications and referrals by email at
> > board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org. The recruitment materials can be
> > found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55283092 [2].
> >
> >
> > I shall update the Meta page shortly [3].
> >
> > Please forward this information to people who are potentially interested
> in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Pine W]

Hi Nataliia,

Thanks for the update. An issue that keeps coming to my mind is whether WMF
would get higher-quality Board candidates, and whether candidates would
devote more time to Wikimedia matters, if Board membership was treated as a
part-time job and paid accordingly. Many people who have the kinds of
skills which are desirable for WMF Board membership can be paid (sometimes
very well) for their services. My understanding is that WMF Board
membership is far more involved than once-per-month meetings that might
happen at smaller organizations which might be able to more feasibly get
volunteers for board roles due to the lower time requirements. Personally,
I would rather have many high quality WMF Board members and have them doing
Board work for 8+ hours per week and pay them accordingly, than have
difficulty finding high quality Board members who are willing to invest the
time required to do their jobs well. This might also help with the problems
which were discussed in other threads regarding WMF Board members feeling
like they lack adequate time to do their jobs adequately with the time that
they have; if Board members are paid for their services then I expect that
there will be less difficulty in this regard.

Thanks,
Pine


Pine


On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have updates about the board recruiting process. As you may recall, March
> 6 was the original deadline for accepting submissions [1], but we need more
> time to develop more solid candidates. Our original deadlines were
> extremely ambitious, thus we decided to extend the deadline by two months.
> Here is an outline of the updated timeline:
>
>
>-
>
>Application and referral submission period (January 23 - May 6)
>-
>
>Application and referral review, proactive candidate recruitment, and
>interviews (January - June 5)
>-
>
>   Initial application review and screenings (January - May)
>   -
>
>   Board Governance Committee
>    Board_Governance_Committee>
>   (BGC) discussions with candidates (January - May)
>   -
>
>   BGC meets and makes short list (May)
>   -
>
>   Second-round interviews (May - June 5)
>   -
>
>  Background check conducted by BGC and Wikimedia Foundation staff
>  -
>
> Criminal and financial background check conducted by outside
> firm
> -
>
> Thorough review of online and public coverage of candidates
> -
>
>Executive Director and BGC meet to determine recommendations and provide
>recommendations to the full Board (June)
>-
>
>Board vote to confirm candidate (July)
>-
>
>Announcement of new candidates (mid-July)
>
>
> We decided to run this search ourselves, rather than going with a
> recruiting firm. If we need additional help, we’ll assess in one month and
> potentially discuss whether we need to look for external firms to support
> our recruitment efforts.
>
> As a reminder, applicants may apply online at:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us#Wikimedia_Careers. We
> also accept applications and referrals by email at
> board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org. The recruitment materials can be
> found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55283092 [2].
>
>
> I shall update the Meta page shortly [3].
>
> Please forward this information to people who are potentially interested in
> serving the Wikimedia movement on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
> (as of Jan 23)
>  Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_recruitment&oldid=16250784>
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_Board_
> Recruiting_Candidate_Packet.pdf
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like to announce that we are officially beginning recruitment
> for
> > two open appointed positions on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees.
> > This email will outline the process and timeline for the recruitment.
> >
> > The Board initially began discussions on recruitment in May-June 2016
> [1].
> > After a pause, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has renewed
> recruitment
> > for its vacant appointed seats and would love to share an update with you
> > today.
> >
> > With support from Anna Stillwell (from the Talent & Culture department)
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Nataliia Tymkiv]

Dear all,

I have updates about the board recruiting process. As you may recall, March
6 was the original deadline for accepting submissions [1], but we need more
time to develop more solid candidates. Our original deadlines were
extremely ambitious, thus we decided to extend the deadline by two months.
Here is an outline of the updated timeline:


   -

   Application and referral submission period (January 23 - May 6)
   -

   Application and referral review, proactive candidate recruitment, and
   interviews (January - June 5)
   -

  Initial application review and screenings (January - May)
  -

  Board Governance Committee
  

  (BGC) discussions with candidates (January - May)
  -

  BGC meets and makes short list (May)
  -

  Second-round interviews (May - June 5)
  -

 Background check conducted by BGC and Wikimedia Foundation staff
 -

Criminal and financial background check conducted by outside
firm
-

Thorough review of online and public coverage of candidates
-

   Executive Director and BGC meet to determine recommendations and provide
   recommendations to the full Board (June)
   -

   Board vote to confirm candidate (July)
   -

   Announcement of new candidates (mid-July)


We decided to run this search ourselves, rather than going with a
recruiting firm. If we need additional help, we’ll assess in one month and
potentially discuss whether we need to look for external firms to support
our recruitment efforts.

As a reminder, applicants may apply online at:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us#Wikimedia_Careers. We
also accept applications and referrals by email at
board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org. The recruitment materials can be
found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55283092 [2].


I shall update the Meta page shortly [3].

Please forward this information to people who are potentially interested in
serving the Wikimedia movement on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
(as of Jan 23)

[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_Board_Recruiting_Candidate_Packet.pdf
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment

Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv

*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*


On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We would like to announce that we are officially beginning recruitment for
> two open appointed positions on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> This email will outline the process and timeline for the recruitment.
>
> The Board initially began discussions on recruitment in May-June 2016 [1].
> After a pause, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has renewed recruitment
> for its vacant appointed seats and would love to share an update with you
> today.
>
> With support from Anna Stillwell (from the Talent & Culture department)
> and Michelle Paulson (our interim General Counsel), the BGC developed four
> candidate profiles for the vacant and soon-to-be-vacant seats and gave its
> recommendations to the Board in December 2016.
>
> During its December meeting, the Board decided that it hopes to find the
> following types of experience and expertise:
>
>
>1.
>
>Growing a global movement: apply
>
> 
>[2]
>2.
>
>Engaging new communities: apply
>
> 
>[3]
>3.
>
>Social sector governance: apply
>
> 
>[4]
>
>
> After that Anna, Michelle, and the Communications team integrated Board
> feedback and developed recruitment materials, which include background
> information about the Wikimedia movement and Foundation as well as the
> profiles describing the types of candidates we are looking for. These
> recruitment materials can be found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
> ?curid=55283092 [5].
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently has two vacant
> appointed seats. We also have a vacant community-selected seat, but this
> seat will be filled through the community selection process. The Election
> Committee, who runs the election process for community-selected seats, will
> provide further information about the process and timelin