Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

Den 2016-06-03 kl. 21:35, skrev Michael Peel: On 3 June 2016 at 03:19, Anders Wennersten wrote: 3.The composition of the Board, mandates given to members of the Board and by whom, formal relation between the Board and the stakeholders of our movement, is a complete

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

Traditionally > WLE offers a trip to Wikimania that fine this year as its offering Montreal > but what happens for WLE 2017 the organisors(WM Ukraine) need to decide and > submit a budget to FDC this year to cover the cost of that prize but there > is no plan. I think you're mixing two

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

Hi Gnangarra, (and a reply to one of Anders' points below) > On 3 Jun 2016, at 01:34, Gnangarra wrote: > > I have a couple of concerns, a review has the potential to stagnate the WMF > as indicated from WMConf in Berlin thats already a problem and its > impacting regular

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

I have a couple of concerns, a review has the potential to stagnate the WMF as indicated from WMConf in Berlin thats already a problem and its impacting regular activities that take longer to organise. Traditionally WLE offers a trip to Wikimania that fine this year as its offering Montreal but

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

Den 2016-06-02 kl. 20:07, skrev Nathan: To Anders' point, perhaps not all insights offered will be new to everyone. Perhaps unwise of me. I state here what I would expect to come out of such an audit/review (and I do not write this to start a heated discussion, I could be very wrong, but

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

Marc - just wanted to thank you for using "begging the question" properly! Chris - thanks for your insight. To Anders' point, perhaps not all insights offered will be new to everyone. But where some problems or potential solutions have been identified by some, it will be nice for them to have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

> governance consultants are very unlikely to recommend >> or support (say) live-streaming board meetings to increase transparency, >> or >> making community-elected trustees unsackable without a referendum of some >> kind >> > > Most of what you said is valuable, but I have to point out that you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

governance consultants are very unlikely to recommend or support (say) live-streaming board meetings to increase transparency, or making community-elected trustees unsackable without a referendum of some kind Most of what you said is valuable, but I have to point out that you are begging

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

Thanks for your feedback. I think it import we have a realistic view on what a governance review/audit can accomplish. My experience on running audits/reviews resembles what you write. A lot of the result will most probably be long bits of text, stating thing that is already well known, like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

thanks for this! A useful food for thought (for transparency: mid-May I started a conversation with Chris about how the process worked in the UK). best, dj On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Chris Keating wrote: > Just wanted to post some thoughts on the subject of

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

Just wanted to post some thoughts on the subject of the WMF having an external governance review/audit. As you may know the FDC recommended that the WMF should do this and I imagine the WMF board is thinking about the matter at the moment. I was Chair of Wikimedia UK when we undertook our