On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
But going forward, the idea that a stranger can ride into town and
instantly lead a global movement-- that's not gonna be sustainable, I
don't think.
This central thought resonated so strongly with me that I had to
Milos Rancic, 24/06/2011 03:54:
However, the most important issue in relation to all of those
appointments is that Board itself was highly disorganized. I mean, why
to organize NomCom when the only product of NomCom's work was to propose
keeping current members and not to do anything else? Why
Hello Joseph,
yes you are right that it looked not good for the board at that time,
and we were all aware of that and nobody on the board at that time was
happy about that. But in my opinion this is the responsibility of the
board. A board should make decisions according to if it is right or
Hello Alec,
it is so interesting that you mentioned the idea of the board as a
government. It reminds me of a blog post of Gerard during the election
in which he said that he is candidating but he don't want to be a
politician. And that blog post again reminds me of something happened
earlier
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
look
better.
I think Michael's point here
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/24/2011 01:58 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
It also wasn't an easy decision to make. The question came down to
this one: do we necessarily refuse someone as a candidate solely
because they were proposed by a funder?
As a
On 24 June 2011 10:22, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is only one thing I think wrong with the consensus narrative above. The
description Matt added so much value it was worth the risk. More accurately
it would read Matt added so much value it was worth the *cost*.
Thank you, Brigitte
On 06/24/2011 07:57 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I also sat on NomCom during this time period. I cannot agree that Matt's
appointment was more problematic than Stu's or Jan-Bart. Frankly all the
appointed board seats are problematic, and I cannot understand how you can
focus on Matt's
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:
On 6/22/2011 10:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
I thought it was reasonably understandable, even without perfect
grammar, that Ting was saying that since Matt is no longer at Omidyar,
if your
Giving extremely generous donors a board seat is somewhat common
practice for charitable organizations in the United States. It's not
done as a pure quid pro quo so much as a way to foster a valuable
relationship and provide benefits in addition to cash. Wikimedia is a
little different in that its
On 23 June 2011 05:05, Joseph Seddon seddonw...@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly that Matt's appointment was a fantastic thing. He is someone with
a lot of knowledge and I wouldn't have battered a eyelid if his appointment
had been made at any other time.
At the end of the day, things have moved
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
board member. That seems contradictory to me.
I'm not sure it is. I think what Joseph is saying is that Matt
What he said :)
Seddon
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
board
On 23 June 2011 13:59, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
board member. That seems contradictory to me.
On 6/23/2011 1:59 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
The lesson to be learned from this, I guess, is that even if you have a good
process and a good outcome, sometimes the community doesn't necessarily see
it that way, and a greater deal of proactive engagement could be helpful in
those cases. Less
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have
improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the
connection much, if that's even what we would want to do. And for people
who were worrying about the
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have
improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the
connection much, if that's even
On 23 June 2011 22:58, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am still confused by the argument here.
I think your confusion is because you are failing to account for
perceptions. It is not good enough to just do things right, you need
to be seen to do things right. You can end up with the
Let me chime in here. Starting at the basic sentiment:
At the end of the day, things have moved on without incident but lets not
simply ignore this issue. I think that there is something to be learnt and
its that care really does need to be taken when repeating a venture like
this.
That's kinda
Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
look
better.
I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely
that there would be just as much
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not good enough to just do things right, you need
to be seen to do things right.
I just can't emphasize Thomas's point enough. I spent a lot of words
trying to say what he was able to say in a single sentence.
On 06/24/2011 01:58 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
It also wasn't an easy decision to make. The question came down to
this one: do we necessarily refuse someone as a candidate solely
because they were proposed by a funder?
As a Nominating committee [1] member, I have to say a few words about
this time,
22 matches
Mail list logo
