Risker is right. This mainly reflects long-standing reality in a more
transparent way, and is an exercise in more effective delegation. A few
years back the staff liaison to the Board (James) took many of the notes at
meetings, which was helpful; since then the Secretary has done much of that
On 11/6/12 3:26 AM, Risker wrote:
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
This resolution does change the composition of the board.
Two seats had a defined role, with clear responsibilities. Now they dont.
Of course there is
On 6 November 2012 03:07, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 11/6/12 3:26 AM, Risker wrote:
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
This resolution does change the composition of the board.
Two seats had a
Risker, 06/11/2012 03:26:
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
[snp]
Somewhere in 500,000 bytes, do you
really think there was any likelihood that there would have been anything
posted that would have improved this
Risker, 06/11/2012 09:40:
On 6 November 2012 03:07, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Errr. No. At least historically, this is incorrect.
Michael Davis was the first treasurer of the board (appointed by Jimbo at
the beginning of the WMF). After some time, Michael announced his
Hi SJ,
to boldly push my question again: do I understand from this correctly there
was at this instance (in your opinion) no urgency that would validate the
chosen procedure? I know you seem to be in favor of this change as much as
I am, but I'm simply trying to understand if there are situations
(just for the record: in case someone does have a valid reason, I'm still
very open to hearing good reasons why the board chose the procedure they
chose (behind closed doors), and whether there was any urgency to the
changes proposed. I somehow missed that in the replies but may have missed
it.
It would strike me that one of the urgencies that might be involved is
the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member who had
previously been the secretary could participate as an individual board
member, and the appointed secretary could take the minutes. It's extremely
rare
I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took minutes...
That would usually be delegated...
On Nov 6, 2012 12:02 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
It would strike me that one of the urgencies that might be involved is
the fact that this resolution was passed so that the
Well, that's the point. Phoebe *was* responsible for this, just as Bishakha
has been so far this year. Who's been sending out the minutes and posting
resolutions?
Further, it's to improve compliance with legislation. Thus, it's
housekeeping.
Risker
On 5 November 2012 19:04, Thomas Dalton
Being responsible for something doesn't you're the one that actually does
it.
On Nov 6, 2012 12:30 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that's the point. Phoebe *was* responsible for this, just as Bishakha
has been so far this year. Who's been sending out the minutes and posting
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
This resolution does change the composition of the board.
Two seats had a defined role, with clear responsibilities. Now they dont.
Of course there is always shared responsibility, but having one person
chiefly responsible ensures someone is focused on those
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
This resolution does change the composition of the board.
Two seats had a defined role, with clear responsibilities. Now they dont.
Of course there is always shared responsibility, but
Dear all,
At its in-person meeting of 26 October, the Board of Trustees also approved
the two following resolutions:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws
This resolution approved the revised and amended Foundation bylaws. The
updated Bylaws are being adopted to ensure
Just reiterating for the n-th time on this list that people would
appreciate if you publicly shared draft bylaws amendments before
approving them.
The consistent lack of transparency in such fundamental decisions within
the WMF is always astonishing.
After the fact, I'd appreciate a readable
Dear Bishakha,
could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive
amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed amendments with
the community and asking their input on it? Especially where it concerns
such non-trivial changes.
I hope that also other board members
Bishaka,
Seeing as there was no public discussion of these amendments, to my
knowledge, can you at least explain them now?
The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be delegated to
staff, it is still the job of the
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:
Please note the substantive change in Article V: Officers and Duties. As
per the amendments, the Secretary and Treasurer are now non-trustee officer
positions.
This doesn't seem too unreasonable in itself, but it is
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please note the substantive change in Article V: Officers and Duties. As
per the amendments, the Secretary and Treasurer are now
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Dear Bishakha,
could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive
amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed amendments with
the community and asking their input on it? Especially
Hi Bishakha,
In my opinion, given the generally curious nature of our movement, it might
be a good idea to make more preparatory material for the board meetings
available publicly in advance.
Not necessarily as a way to allow comments or input, but as a matter of
transparency. Especially for
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bishakha,
In my opinion, given the generally curious nature of our movement, it might
be a good idea to make more preparatory material for the board meetings
available publicly in advance.
Not necessarily as a way
On Nov 2, 2012 3:07 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be
delegated to
Hi Bishakha,
2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Dear Bishakha,
could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive
amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed
It's a good idea to make prep materials available a week in advance, to the
community as to the board.
Exceptions can be made for any materials that are sensitive in nature.
I can think of only one or two examples from the past few meetings. Much
of the material is published afterwards anyway.
On 2 November 2012 16:06, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I've added a reference link into the resolution at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws
Please go through this to compare old and revised versions of the bylaws;
since there are many small
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't see how this validates the fact that you did not consult the
community on these changes. If the changes are fairly trivial and
legalistic, then the community will likely have little objection. But as
you
Hi Phoebe,
thank you for your thoughts. I must admit that I don't remember these
discussions and yes, I understand the frustration even more with this
background. Like Bishakha and Sam I will support to publish as much
information as possible before our meetings. I agree that this issue
would have
Bishakha Datta, 02/11/2012 17:08:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
This doesn't seem too unreasonable in itself, but it is somewhat surprising
that you didn't readjust the board's composition accordingly. The
justification for having unelected seats is to ensure that the
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:46 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My apologies. I read your previous suggestion during the travel guide
discussion and the only real route for communicating with a Board member to
solicit a proposal seemed to me to be private user-to-user e-mail. Are
there
30 matches
Mail list logo
