Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

I'm currently the one in charge of coordinating (on the staff side) the Standing Elections Committee (Greg resigned from the committee when he became a communications department contractor and I'm not sure why you pinged Lane, I assume because of the Affiliate Appointments process but that is not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

I like the idea of a boot camp or orientation for board members, which could be applicable to both affiliate and WMF boards. I believe that the standing Elections Committee, once it is operational, has plans to work on this, along with cultivating a list of good candidates for affiliate and WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating wrote: > If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than conflict of > interest: > >> >> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not > appropriate to >> pursue as a member of the Board. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

On 11 April 2016 at 13:29, Chris Keating wrote: > > > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not > appropriate to > > pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice, > but > > it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Dealing with COI is more than just declaring it. It also needs to be managed. Denny's COI issues were apparently somewhat self-managed to a certain extent, but please pay mind to this part of what he wrote: I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate to pursue as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Any COI generates burocracy. After or before. Doing it before helps to avoid empty seats. In an election is the same community to check it. If there is an appointment, there is not a preliminary extensive check. A potential COI is revealed after the appointment. Il 09 Apr 2016 12:15, "Gerard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

On 11 April 2016 at 14:03, Anders Wennersten wrote: > The election does not elect members of the Board, and I have not written > that Firstly, please don't top-post. > The election does, though, elect candidates to be considered by the Board > for appointment to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

The election does not elect members of the Board, and I have not written that The election does, though, elect candidates to be considered by the Board for appointment to the Board The three members in the Board are not community elected (and I have never written that), but they are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten wrote: > this is the second community selected ITYM "community suggested". The selection is done by the board. > that has left the Board within a year > after being appointed, and before any future election There are no

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings waiting to fill vacancies. It’s a win-win. Betty (Atsme) > On Apr 10, 2016, at 4:02 AM, James Heilman wrote: > > Two community elected members every 1.5 years would be a good. Three could > than be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Two community elected members every 1.5 years would be a good. Three could than be elected if someone steps down. James On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Pine W wrote: > I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled > every year is that if a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled every year is that if a community-elected member departs from the board in the first year of their term, then it's simple to have another seat elected in the next cycle to fill the remainder of that term.. Pine On Sun, Apr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process. Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ: leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure. Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community election to end formally

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Yes. The 'not' was implied. ;-) Per future President Clinton, those were just my words. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-misspoke-over-claims-of-sniper-fire-in-visit-to-bosnia-800606.html If only there was a way of writing text online that could be edited after pressing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Did you miss a “not” in there? Fae said: “Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.” Suggested edit: “…leaving your seat should NOT be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Hoi, Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of interest? Thanks, GerardM On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be > sufficient. Probably an evaluation of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the candidacy and to manage them better. Kind regards Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders

[Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign the only reasonable way forward BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a year after being appointed, and